Bicycle Projects Planning and Design Guidelines

Users are responsible for keeping this manual updated.
Information on updates
and revisions can be received by contacting:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
1552 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1552
Phone (919) 807-0777 Fax (919) 807-0768
ii
January 1994
North Carolina Bicycle Facilities

Planning And Design Guidelines
January 1994

Produced by Bikecentennial
Edited by The University of North Carolina Institute for Transportation Research and Education
for the NCDOT, Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation

1552 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 (919) 807-0777
This manual draws heavily upon several copyrighted publications of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), including the AASHTO Guide for the Development of New Bicycle Facilities (1981) and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities (1991). The 1991 Guide updated and superseded the 1981 Guide, which is no longer available. Also drawn upon are the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges, Fourteenth Edition (1989), the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (1989), and the AASHTO Maintenance Manual
(1987). Permission to utilize material taken from and based upon these publications has been granted by AASHTO to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, solely for the purpose of publishing this manual. Information on how to obtain copies of these publications can be obtained by writing to: AASHTO, 444 N. Capitol St. NW, Suite 249, Washington D.C. 20001.
Parts of the manual are also based upon the Arizona Bicycle Facilities Planning & Design Guidelines (1988), the North Carolina Roadway Design
Manual (1984), the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (1988), the Highway Capacity Manual (1985), and the Motor Vehicle Laws of North
Carolina (1985).
January 1994
iii
iv
January 1994
North Carolina Bicycle Facilities

Planning And Design Guidelines
Table of Contents
Section ......................................................................Page
Section ......................................................................Page
1: Introduction..........................................................
History................................................................1
Planning for bicycle transportation ....................1
Definitions..........................................................2
Purpose and scope ..............................................3
2: Planning for bicycle use......................................
Introduction: The planning process....................5
Step 1: Develop goals and objectives.................5
Step 2: Develop planning framework.................6
Step 3: Analyze local conditions........................6
Step 4: Develop problem statement .................11
Step 5: Generate solution ideas ........................11
Step 6: Select solutions & develop plan...........13
Step 7: Implement projects ..............................13
Step 8: Evaluate results and revise ...................14
3: Design factors......................................................
Bicycle and bicyclist characteristics ................15
Design options..................................................16
4: Roadway improvements......................................
Drainage grates ...............................................17
Railroad crossings ............................................18
Pavement quality ..............................................19
Traffic control devices......................................19
Structures .........................................................21
Bridges .............................................................22
Tunnels, underpasses, interchanges .................24
Shoulders..........................................................25
Rumble strips ...................................................26
Wide outside lanes ...........................................26
5: Bicycle lanes ........................................................
Introduction ......................................................29
Bicycle lane delineation ...................................30
Bicycle lane surface quality .............................31
Bicycle lane widths ..........................................31
Bicycle lane intersection design.......................31
6: Bicycle routes ......................................................
Introduction ......................................................37
Overall planning...............................................37
Selecting bike routes ........................................38
Designating bike routes....................................39

Mapping ...........................................................40
7: Bicycle paths........................................................
Introduction ......................................................41
Separating paths and highways ........................42
Multipurpose recreational trails .......................42
Width and clearance .........................................42
Design speed ....................................................45
Horizontal alignment & superelevation ...........45
Grades ..............................................................46
Sight distance ...................................................47
Intersections .....................................................48
Restriction of motor vehicle traffic ..................50
Bike path signing and marking ........................51
Pavement structure ...........................................52
Bike path structures..........................................54
Drainage ...........................................................55
Lighting ............................................................56
Multi-use paths.................................................56
8: Supplemental facilities........................................
Bicycle parking ................................................59
Other facilities and services .............................61
9: Operation and maintenance ................................
General .............................................................63
On-road facilities..............................................63
Bicycle paths ....................................................63
Appendices...........................................................67
1: Bicycle and Bikeway Act of 1974 ...............69
2: NCDOT Bicycle Policy................................71
3: The Bicycle T.I.P. Process............................73
4: The MUTCD Part IX ...................................77
5: North Carolina signs ....................................93
References............................................................95
January 1994
Table Of Contents
vi
January 1994
List Of Figures
Figure ...............................................................................................................................................................................Page
2-1: Comprehensive bicycle planning ..................................................................................................................................6

4-1: Bicycle-safe drainage grates........................................................................................................................................17
4-2: Flared roadway permits bicyclists to cross angled railroad crossing..........................................................................18
4-3: Cross-section of rubberized railroad crossing.............................................................................................................18
4-4: Cross-section of rubberized railroad crossing.............................................................................................................19
4-5: Recommended loop types for bicycle detection .........................................................................................................20
4-6: Combination traffic and bicycle bridge railings..........................................................................................................22
4-7: Suggested minimum widths for bicycle accomodations on bridges...........................................................................23
4-8: Aerodynamic forces caused by heavy motor vehicles ................................................................................................24
4-9: Minimum clearances and widths for paved shoulders intended for bicycle travel.....................................................25
4-10: Options for creating wide outside lanes for bicycle traffic in different situations......................................................26
5-1: Common bike lane design errors.................................................................................................................................30
5-2: Typical bike lane cross sections on 2-lane or multi-lane highways............................................................................32
5-3: Typical bicyclist and motor vehicle movements in an intersection............................................................................33
5-4: Bicycle lane striping options at intersections with right-turn-only lanes ...................................................................34
6-1: Typical signs used for designating bicycle routes.......................................................................................................40
6-2: Signs used to designate numbered bicycle route.........................................................................................................40
7-1: Bicycle path cross sections..........................................................................................................................................43
7-2: Safety rail between bicycle path and adjacent slope...................................................................................................44
7-3: Design radii for paved bicycle paths ...........................................................................................................................46
7-4: Curve widening may partially offset the effects of substandard curves .....................................................................46
7-5: Stopping sight distances on bicycle paths ...................................................................................................................47
7-6: Sight distances for crest vertical curves on bicycle paths ...........................................................................................48
7-7: Lateral clearance on horizontal curves on bicycle paths.............................................................................................49
7-8: Reflectorized post barrier and striping ........................................................................................................................50
7-9: Alternative approach to bike path/roadway intersection treatment ............................................................................51
7-10: Two approaches to separating a bicycle path from a walkway ..................................................................................52
7-11: Typical pavement structural sections for bicycle paths ..............................................................................................53
7-12: Bicycle path railroad crossing .....................................................................................................................................54
7-13: Alternative railing designs for independent bicycle bridges.......................................................................................55
7-14: Bridge widths and clearances ......................................................................................................................................55
7-15: Bicycle path underpass ................................................................................................................................................56
January 1994
List Of Figures vii
viii
January 1994
1 Introduction
Bicycling is a popular means of travel and recreation for a variety of people.
History
The bicycle has been around in some form
since the early 1800s, when Baron von Drais of
Germany developed his Draisienne, a twowheeled device with a saddle and a steering
handlebar, but no pedals. During the 19th century, such features as pneumatic tires, gearing,
pedals, and brakes were added to the point
where the bicycle of the late 1800s looked much
like the bicycle of today.
As breakthroughs in mass production techniques drove bicycle prices down and the bicycle became more popular, a major problem
arose. The roads of the day were, for the most
part, dirt trails. In foul weather, these became
quagmires and bicyclists found riding difficult,
if not impossible.
This problem led bicyclists to create and
lead the Good Roads Movement. One major
thrust of this campaign was to build short
stretches of all-weather paved roads around the
country, demonstrating how such roads would
improve transportation in America.
As the automobile's popularity grew during
the first part of this century, the bicycle' s popularity declined, eventually becoming little more
than a childs toy. However, since the late 1960s,
adult bicycle use has grown dramatically. Today,
January 1994
millions of Americans use the bicycle to fulfill

their transportation, recreational, fitness and
utilitarian needs.
Planning for bicycle transportation
Since the early 1970s, agencies have worked
to accommodate the growing number of bicyclists in their roadway planning and engineering. While early attempts were experimental in
nature, over the years, designers have begun
assembling an accepted body of field experience
and theoretical knowledge. Although many
questions remain to be answered, much has been
learned.
Some examples of changes seen in the bicycle planning and engineering field in recent
years are as follows:
Early designers believed a 1.5 m (5 ft) wide
two-way path was sufficient; todays two-way
paths are at least 3.0 m (10 ft) wide.
Early designers tried to separate bicycle and
motor vehicle traffic; today, designers know
that separation can increase crash rates when
bicyclists and motorists surprise each other at
intersections.
Early curve design formulas gave a radius of less
than 15 m (50 ft) for a 48 km/h (30 mph) curve;
todays formula gives a radius of 75 m (250 ft).
Introduction
Each year, cities throughout North Carolina

request more and improved bicycle facilities.
Many are actively developing networks of bicycle improvements and producing bicycle route
maps.
The state has shown its support for bicycling
through the Bicycle and Bikeway Act of 1974,
which states that it is in the public interest,
health, safety and welfare for the state to
encourage and provide for the efficient and safe
use of the bicycle and that bikeways are a
bona fide highway purpose, subject to the same
rights and responsibilities, and eligible for the
same considerations as other highway purposes

and functions [GS 136-71-8]. The state also
sponsors one of the most active bicycle programs in the nation.
At the national level, the U.S. Department of
Transportation under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA),
is more involved in bicycle planning and engineering projects than ever before. Among other
provisions, ISTEA requires states and local
agencies to include bicycle considerations in
their overall transportation planning processes.
Definitions
The following terms are used throughout this manual. References from North Carolina General Statutes are included where applicable.
BICYCLE: A non-motorized vehicle with two or three
wheels tandem, a steering handle, one or two saddle seats and pedals by which the vehicle is propelled [GS 20-171.1].
BICYCLE FACILITIES: A general term denoting improvements and provisions to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking facilities, maps, all
bikeways and shared roadways.
BICYCLE LANE (BIKE LANE): A portion of a roadway
which has been designated by striping, signing,
and pavement markings for the preferential or
exclusive use of bicyclists.
BICYCLE PATH (BIKE PATH): A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic and either
within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way.
BICYCLE ROUTE (BIKE ROUTE): A segment of a system
of bikeways designated by the jurisdiction having
authority with appropriate directional and informational markers, with or without a specific bicycle
route number.
BIKEWAY: A thoroughfare suitable for bicycles may
either exist within the right-of-way of other modes
of transportation, such as highways, or along a
separate and independent corridor [GS 136-71.7].
HIGHWAY: The entire width between property or right-ofway lines of every way or place of whatever nature,
when any part thereof is open to the use of the public
as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular traffic. The terms highway and street and their cognates are synonymous [GS 20-4.01 (13)].
Introduction
RIGHT-OF-WAY: A general term denoting land, property, or interest therein, usually in a strip, acquired for
or devoted to transportation purposes.
RIGHT OF WAY: The right of one vehicle or pedestrian
to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to
another vehicle or pedestrian.
ROADWAY: That portion of a highway improved,
designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel,
exclusive of the shoulder. In the event a highway
includes two or more separate roadways the term
roadway as used herein shall refer to any such
roadway separately but not to all such roadways
collectively [GS 20-4.01 (38)].
SHARED ROADWAY: Any roadway upon which a bicycle
lane is not designated and which may be legally
used by bicycles regardless of whether such facility
is specifically designated as a bikeway.
SHOULDER: That part of a highway which is contiguous
to the regularly traveled portion of the highway and
is on the same level as the highway; the shoulder
may be pavement, gravel or earth.
SIDEWALK: The portion of a highway designed for
preferential or exclusive use by pedestrians.
STREET: A highway as defined in subdivision (13) [see
above]. The terms highway and street and their
cognates are synonymous [GS 20-4.01 (46)].
January 1994
Purpose and scope

The purpose of this set of planning and
design guidelines is to inform engineers, planners and other transportation officials of the
planning and design considerations which are
recommended for good bicycle facility design.
The information contained in this manual is
a distillation of much of what has been learned
in the past 20 years. The intention is to help
designers avoid repeating mistakes made in the
past.
These guidelines provide a uniform set of
the most current planning and design considerations available for safe and effective bicycle
facilities development, construction and maintenance.
January 1994
Introduction
Introduction
January 1994
2 Planning For Bicycle Use
Planning for bicycle use involves learning about and responding to the expressed needs and desires of bicycling
and non-bicycling residents.
Introduction: the planning process

Planning for bicycle use involves learning
about and responding to the expressed needs
and desires of residents by encouraging a
healthy, environmentally-beneficial activity bicycle riding. The potential benefits of bicycling to the community include reductions in
transportation-related energy use, traffic congestion, improved air quality and public health.
The process of planning for bicycle use can
be simple or complex depending on the needs
and scale of the community. But whatever the
scope, the following steps are suggested when
planning for bicycle use.
(1.) Develop goals and objectives
(2.) Develop the planning framework
(3.) Analyze local conditions
(4.) Develop the problem statement
(5.) Generate solution ideas
(6.) Develop overall plan and select solutions
(7.) Implement projects
(8.) Evaluate results and revise
January 1994
Step 1: Develop goals and objectives

The first step in planning for bicycle use is
to develop the agencys goals and objectives for
bicycling. These should be as specific and measurable as possible. Measurable, specific goals
can be achieved more readily than vague, general goals.
Potential goals and objectives: The agencys
overall goal may be to encourage increased use
of the bicycle for utilitarian and recreational
purposes. More specific sub-goals would
include ones similar to those listed below, but
more detailed objectives giving performance
measures and approximate time frames.
Goal 1. Hazard elimination: Identify bicycling hazards on all streets in the community
and work for their elimination.
Goal 2. Barrier elimination: Identify barriers to bicycling on all streets in the community
and work for their elimination.
Planning
Goal 3. Behavior improvement: Identify the

most important bicycling and motoring behavioral problems, in terms of bike safety, and work
to correct them.
Goal 4. Institutional enhancements: Identify governmental policies (e.g. parking ordinances) which may be changed to enhance
bicycle use and add appropriate pro-bicycling
language.
Step 2: Develop planning framework

Comprehensive bicycle planning: Comprehensive bicycle planning encompasses four areas:
engineering, education, enforcement and
encouragement (Figure 2-1). In this manual,
bicycle facility improvements are discussed as
they relate to engineering. However, it is important that local agencies develop cooperative
strategies in all four areas to implement a truly
comprehensive program.
An incomplete program can result in
unachieved goals. For example, if an engineering agency provides bicycle facilities, which
attract new bicyclists, but the police fail to
enforce basic bicycle traffic laws (e.g., using
lights at night, riding with traffic, obeying stop
signs), there may be more people riding unlawfully and, possibly, more bicycle crashes. Creating a bicycle advisory committee with
representatives from all involved agencies, as
well as members of the public, can be one very
good way of developing such a comprehensive
approach.
Integration with other plans: Planning for bicycle
transportation also should be integrated into the

overall transportation planning process. Often
an improvement which enhances bicycle travel
will also benefit other modes of travel. For
example, wide outside lanes, added to a roadway to provide extra space for bicyclists, also
benefit motorists by maintaining capacity in the
curb lane.
Similarly, highway improvements, through
appropriate planning and design, can enhance
bicycle travel. For example, paved shoulders
added to rural highways for the pupose of
reducing motor vehicle accidents and maintenance can significantly improve those roads for
bicycling.
Other plans, such as open space plans, outdoor recreation plans and land use plans ,
should address bicycle concerns as well. For
example, uniform (and spread-out) land uses
tend to increase distances between home, work
and shopping, and make bicycling less feasible
for many trips. Also, parking ordinances may
include bicycle parking requirements. Virtually
every plan can or may affect bicycle transportation in some manner and, therefore, should
address bicycle concerns.
Step 3: Analyze local conditions

Successfully planning for bicycle transportation requires developing an understanding
of current conditions and future needs. The two
primary aspects to consider are user characteristics and environmental conditions.
Engineering
Education
Hazard removal
Roadway improvements
Barrier & bottleneck elimination
On-road bikeway development
Bicycle trail development
In-class instruction
On-bike training
Adult education
Driver training
Awareness campaigns
Comprehensive
Bicycle Planning
Enforcement
Encouragement
Basic traffic law enforcement

Warning programs for children
Selective enforcement
Accident statistic compilation
Bicycle patrols
Bike to work days

Recreation programs
Parking ordinances
Bicycle mapping
Media campaigns
Figure 2-1: A model for comprehensive bicycle planning, encompassing the areas of engineering, education,
enforcement and encouragement.
Planning
January 1994
User characteristics:
Since satisfying the needs and desires of the
users is the primary goal of bicycle planning,
planners must learn as much as possible about
the different groups who ride. Four main
approaches are useful in gathering the necessary
data: surveys, bicycle counts, behavioral observations and crash studies.
User surveys: User surveys give information on
bicyclists and non-bicyclists attitudes, demographic characteristics and, to some extent,
behavior. Demographic data of interest would
include respondents ages, sex, education, occupation and patterns of bicycle ownership.
Attitude data would include perceptions of
cycling problems and interest in new opportunities for bicycle use. Behavior data would
include factors like current levels of bicycle use,
bicycling purposes, distances traveled and helmet and headlight use.
Since surveys must be carefully crafted if
they are to be valid, it is important to get expert
help. However, such assistance need not be
expensive. For example, a local university professor may agree to give such a project to his or
her students. Other opportunities for collecting
affordable survey data may involve collaborating
with similar agencies or public interest groups.
Sharing costs will reduce the amount spent by
each participant.
Three primary approaches for surveying
bicyclists are telephone surveys, mail surveys
and face-to-face surveys.
Telephone surveys: Telephone surveys
involve calling a random sample of residents
and asking a set of standardized questions.
Phone surveys have the advantage of involving
an operator in a central location, and they are
relatively fast to conduct. This helps keep the
costs down. However, phone interviewers get no
visual clues by which to judge the answers, and
getting a representative sample may be difficult
depending on phone ownership patterns. Also, it
is difficult to spend much time with the person
being interviewed.
Mail surveys: Mail surveys involve distributing a printed survey form to a sample of residents and asking respondents to return the
January 1994
survey when completed. Mail surveys involve

relatively low costs and provide a geographical
distribution of residents. They are easy for
respondents to complete and time is less of a
factor. Standardization is a benefit, in terms of
collecting statistics. However, it is difficult to
ask open-ended questions which may need follow-up. In addition, response rates are generally
low.
Face-to-face surveys: Face-to-face surveys
involve personally asking respondents a set of
questions. This approach is a good way to get
answers to complex questions, since it allows
the interviewer to ask probing follow-up questions. However, face-to-face surveys are time
consuming, and uncontrolled factors, like the
personal interaction with the interviewer and
differences between the approaches of multiple
interviewers, may affect the results.
Bicycle counts: Doing bicycle counts will help
to determine baseline levels of current use. By
identifying locations with high or low use, it is
possible to determine where bicycle improvements are most likely to fill an existing need.
At the same time, bicycle counts will not identify latent demand. Such information is best
gathered through user surveys.
The first step is to identify key corridors
for bicycle travel. Since there is likely to be
little data on the subject, locations should be
chosen based on intuition and a general feel
for where bicyclists are likely to be found
(e.g., near universities and schools, passing
over key bridges, etc.). Within these corridors,
one should identify locations where the most
useful data may be gathered. For example, it
may be important to know if bicyclists generally turn or go straight through a particular
intersection. Next, it is important to decide on
a time for counting. If recreational use is
important, evening and weekend hours will be
important. If utilitarian riding is important,
commute times (for work and school) will be
important.
Records of the bicycle counts should be
kept in a safe place where they may be found
in future years. The value of routine bicycle
counts lies primarily in their ability to show
change over time. Increases in bicycle use in a
Planning
particular corridor from one year to the next

may suggest that improvements implemented
have met with users approval, for example.
Conversely, decreases in use may reflect a worsening bicycling environment.
For this reason, it is important to consider
counts as part of an evaluation system. They
should be performed on a routine basis, at least
annually but preferably several times per year.
There are two primary counting techniques:
manual counts and mechanical counts. The
appropriate counting technique will depend on
the available labor, equipment and the location
of interest. Manual counts are best done at intersections, allowing counters to keep track of
bicycle traffic on more than one street. Turn
movements can also be recorded. Manual
counts, however, are labor-intensive.
Mechanical counts are best done away from
the influence of intersections. As a result, turning movements are not as easily recorded. However, labor is not a problem; this approach is
quite useful for an agency that has the equipment. Specific tips on using each method follow.
Manual counts: Counters should be provided
with standard forms with diagrams of the location that identify each movement with a unique
number. Clipboards with mechanical counters
may make counting easier. Otherwise, staff
should tick off the number of bicyclists they see
performing each movement. Volunteers can help
agencies perform time-intensive manual counts.
Mechanical counts: The location for a
mechanical count should be chosen carefully.
The best situation is one that allows motor vehicle traffic to flow freely at speeds of 40 km/h
(25 mph) or more without enhancing bicycle
speed. Significant downhill grades allow bicyclists to approach motor vehicle speeds and,
therefore, are not appropriate locations for
mechanical counts. However, uphill grades
work well.
Counters should be installed in pairs as in a
speed study. Sensitivity should be set to detect
bicycles. Any traffic moving significantly slower than the rest (e.g., 8 to 25 km/h (5 to 15
mph)) would likely be bicycles.
Planning
Behavioral observation: Observing bicyclist

behavior and bicyclist-motorist interactions can
help identify problems that otherwise would not
be noticed. While crash data, for example, can
highlight the most serious problems and user
comments can report what people say or
believe, behavioral observation can show what
people actually do. In some cases, observing
behavior can help determine priorities for educational programs and awareness campaigns. In
others, it may expose quirks in the road network.
Typical behaviors: Common behaviors to

consider when setting up observations include
use of helmets and other safety equipment, general lane use and lane use when compared with
destination at intersections, traffic law compliance and turning maneuvers.
Observation technique: The first step is to
decide what behavior is important, using the list
given above as a basis. Next, a simple checklist
should be developed, presenting the options
(e.g., wrong way vs. right way riding) in an
easy-to-record fashion. Observers should be
able to quickly check off which of the behaviors
they see. Each observer should be trained prior
to being sent into the field. Adequate training
significantly improves the accuracy, reliability
and consistency of the data. For more information on field work, see the previous section on
bicycle counts.
Crash studies: Determining the major causes
and locations of bicycle crashes is an important
step in understanding a communitys cycling
problems.
Police crash reports: Police records are one of
the best sources of information on a communitys
common crash types; however, the majority of
bicycle crashes are not reported. Typically, only
one serious car-bike crash in five is reported. Of
the crashes that do not involve motor vehicles,
only one in twenty are reported. As a result,
police data can only give an indication of the
problem. Even so, police records provide useful
information (Stutts 1986).
One enlightening task is to categorize
reported crashes according to the crash types
January 1994
developed for the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration. (See the Reference section at the end of this document for further
information on crash types.)
Emergency room records: Another source of
data on bicycle crashes is the hospital emergency room. In several North Carolina communities, hospitals have cooperated with crash
researchers to compile data on the number of
bicyclists seriously injured in crashes, their ages
and sexes, and the general circumstances surrounding the crash. Collecting hospital data is a
good way to determine the overall scope of the
problem and learn some of the demographic factors of interest. However, hospital records are not
generally a good source of detailed information
on crash type. Police records are better for this
purpose. To learn more about emergency room
studies, see the reports listed in the Reference
section.
Surveys: Contacting bicycle users is another
way to get general information on local crash
problems. Such information as the seriousness
of injury, general type and location of crash
(e.g., bike-bike, bike-car), bicyclist demographics, and time and day of crash may be gathered
in this way. In order to accomplish several goals
at once, a crash survey may be part of a more
general bicycle user survey (see page 7).
Crash study implications: Information gathered
through bicycle crash studies can help structure
an agencys bicycle program in several ways.
The two most important topics for analysis are
as follows:
Environmental conditions inventory:

In order to plan effectively for bicycle use, it
is important to gain a detailed understanding of
local environmental conditions. Local bicycle
clubs may be a good source of information when
inventorying local bicycle conditions.
Developing a map or set of maps of such
conditions is a key ingredient in the bicycle planning process. The most important conditions fall
into three main categories: barriers, hazards and
bicycle traffic generators. Because locating these
features can be a time-consuming and staff-intensive process, it is best to solicit information from
the community. There are several ways to accomplish this goal.
Volunteer recruitment: A relatively small
group of cycling volunteers can help conduct an
environmental conditions inventory. By breaking the community into districts and giving a
map of each one to a volunteer, one can make
the task more manageable. Volunteers should
use the lists of barriers and hazards on the following pages and should be briefed, as a group,
on how to record their observations.
Public meetings: A series of public meetings
can help staff identify key problems. By bringing a set of maps and encouraging attendees to
note barriers or hazards of greatest concern, it is
possible to collect a lot of data in a short period
of time. Another approach is to attend regularly
scheduled meetings of neighborhood associations. These may not bring in as much bicycling
expertise as specially scheduled bike meetings,
however.
Bicycle crash locations: Through the three

approaches listed above, it is possible to develop a
map of bicycle crash locations. These locations
should be investigated to identify any physical hazards which may contribute to accidents.
Hang tags and postcards: In some communities, bicyclists are encouraged to note barriers
or hazards on mailback postcards distributed
through bicycle shops and other high-traffic
locations. In other cases, hang tag surveys are
hung from bike handlebars and cyclists are
encouraged to send these back.
Behavioral factors: Bicyclist and motorist

behavioral problems are the leading factors in
most crashes. The studies may help isolate key
errors, which may become the focus of education and public awareness programs.
Surveys: See User Surveys (page 7) for

information concerning how to conduct a survey.
January 1994
Planning
Barrier identification: Since for most people

bicycle trips tend to be shorter than motoring
trips, physical features can act as barriers to
bicycle travel. A 5 km (3 mi) detour to get
around a railroad track, for example, may be an
annoyance for those driving cars but may deter
people from using bicycles for what would otherwise be a relatively short trip.
Identifying and eliminating such barriers
can open up major portions of the road network
for bicycle use. However, the cost of bicycle
bridges and other such facilities should be
weighed against the accompanying benefits.
Identifying barriers is a simple process of noting
such features on a map.
Common barriers: Common bicycle traffic

barriers include limited access freeways and
expressways; shopping centers; rivers, creeks,
canals and lakes; dead-end streets and cul de
sacs; linear parks; mountains and ravines; railroads and transit lines; and utility rights-of-way.
Hazard identification: Hazards on existing
highways should be considered for their effects
on bicycling. A hazard is a condition that has
the potential to cause a bicycle crash. The vast
majority of serious bicycle crashes are singlebike accidents in which the bicyclist either hits a
stationary object or loses control due to surface
problems or operator error.
The most common bicycling hazards fall
into three primary categories: surface hazards,
geometric hazards and operating hazards.
Surface hazards: Surface hazards involve problems with the roadway or pathway surface. The
most important ones are listed below.
Unsafe drainage grates or utility covers:
Parallel bar grates can catch wheels while grates
and covers that are not flush with the roadway
surface can damage a wheel or cause a fall.
Debris: Gravel, sand, glass and other debris
tend to accumulate in certain areas (e.g., near
the right edge of the roadway or at intersections). Such debris may cause loss of control. A
bicyclist may experience a crash when swerving
to avoid such conditions.
10 Planning
Rough shoulder or rumble strips: Rumble

strips laid down on rural highway shoulders are
intended to alert sleepy or unattentive drivers,
but their roughness can cause bicyclists to lose
control and crash. For this reason, bicyclists
will often choose to ride in the travel lane to
avoid them.
Rough pavement: Rough pavement can be a
serious impediment to bicycling. Rough pavement
includes potholes, ravelled edges and cracks
(especially those going the direction of travel).
Excessive drop-offs at the gutter pan: Multiple overlays on curb and gutter sections can cause
a pavement build-up and subsequent drop-off at
the point where the pavement meets the gutter
pan. This can result in a hazard to bicyclists.
Bridge expansion joints: Some bridge expansion joints are unlevel and can cause wheel
damage when bicyclists pass over them.
Metal grate bridge decks: Some bridge deck
designs can cause bicyclists difficulty in controlling their bicycles due to the unevenness of their
surface.
Railroad crossings: On diagonal railroad
crossings, the gap next to the rail can trap bicycle wheels, causing a fall. Rough crossings can
cause wheel damage or falls.
Geometric hazards: Geometric hazards involve
characteristics of the roadways other than the
surface.
Narrow lanes or structures: Narrow lanes
(i.e., less than 3.6 m to 4.2 m (12 ft to 14 ft) in
width) make it difficult for motorists to pass
bicyclists safely without shifting to adjacent
lanes. On multi-lane roads or structures,
motorists can shift into the adjacent same-direction lane, which is a relatively safe maneuver.
However, on two-lane facilities, motorists must
shift into the on-coming travel lane, a potentially dangerous situation. Often, they will try to
stay in the lane and squeeze past the bicyclist
instead.
January 1994
High volume driveways: High volume commercial driveways, like those at fast food restaurants, can be more hazardous than less-used
commercial driveways or residential driveways.
Sight obstructions: Sight restrictions like
shrubs, fences or parked cars near intersections
are significant factors in many car/bike crashes.
Traffic signals not bike-responsive: Many
demand-actuated signal systems were designed
and installed without attention to their effects on
bicyclists. As a result, bicyclists may find it
impossible to get a green light.
Operating hazards: Operating hazards involve
specific characteristics of other traffic. The most
important are listed below.
High speed traffic: High traffic speeds are
often associated with a greater threat of fatal
crashes. They are most hazardous when combined with high traffic volumes, high percentages of truck traffic, and narrow lane and
shoulder widths.
High volume traffic: High volumes of motorized traffic serve as a deterrent to bicycling and
may lead to more car-bike crashes. They also
increase the stress levels on bicycle users.
High volumes of truck or RV traffic: On
high-speed roads, trucks generate buffeting
winds that can push bicyclists off to the right
and then pull them back to the left. If the traffic
lanes are narrow and there is no ridable shoulder, the presence of significant volumes of truck
traffic can be a deterrent to safe and comfortable
bicycle use. Also, on scenic narrow roads that
are popular with tourists, RV side mirrors can
strike bicyclists heads.
Curbside auto parking: Short-term parking
generally causes more problems than long-term
parking because of the number of motorists
entering and exiting the spaces and their cars.
Diagonal parking is particularly troublesome for
bicyclists, because motorists may often back
well out into the travel lane in order to look for
approaching traffic.
January 1994
Bicycle Traffic Generators: Bicycle traffic

tends to occur where residential areas are
accessible to peoples likely destinations. For
most people, average bicycle trip lengths are
under 8 km (5 mi), and, for this reason, isolated destinations will not attract much bicycle traffic. Areas near bicycle traffic
generators should be reviewed to identify
existing or potential bicycle travel.
Common bicycle traffic generators
include major employment centers, downtown shopping areas, schools and universities, college residential areas, sports and
recreation complexes and parks.
Step 4: Develop the problem statement

The information gathered in the previous
step can be combined into a comprehensive
statement of the problem. This statement
includes two primary parts: a set of environmental conditions maps and accompanying descriptions of hazards, barriers, etc.; and a report
outlining the non-physical situation. These documents give the basis upon which to judge
potential problem solutions.
Environmental conditions maps: One map
would show major barriers and hazardous sites.
A larger map would show more detail on specific problems like non-responsive traffic signals
and drainage grates. The accompanying description would discuss details not possible to show
on the maps, including such features as site
plans of particular intersections and photos of
unique hazards.
Non-physical conditions report: This document
would discuss findings of user surveys, behavioral observations, crash studies and bicycle
counts.
Step 5: Generate solution ideas

Once a comprehensive list of problems
has been assembled, it is possible to identify
potential solutions by focusing on the problems one at a time. In many cases, the solutions are standard ideas; however, it is
possible that analysis has identified some
truly unique local situations.
In such cases, having a clear understanding of the standard options and a commitment
Planning 11
to evaluating results will allow the designer to

create a unique solution that both works and does
not contribute to other problems.
The following is a list of potential solutions to
some common problems.
Roadway improvements: Roadway improvements can solve many bicycling problems. The
following ideas are explained in further detail in
the subsequent chapters.
Replace unsafe drainage grates or utility
covers: Parallel bar grates can be replaced with
bicycle-safe models, and covers that are not flush
with the surface of the roadway can be adjusted.
Sweep debris: A map may be developed showing the most serious locations. This map could
help guide the maintenance departments work.
Remove shoulder rumble strips: Where not
needed, rumble strips may be removed. Where
they are needed, they may be located in such a
manner as to present the minimal hazard for bicyclists.
Improve rough pavements: Bad stretches of
pavement may be repaired or resurfaced.
Eliminate excessive drop-offs at the gutter
pan: Excessive drop-offs can be eliminated by
feathering out the asphalt at the point where the
pavement edge meets the gutter pan during resurfacing. Consideration can also be given to milling
the old pavement surface to prevent the build-up.
Repair bridge expansion joints: Rough or
uneven bridge expansion joints should be inspected and repaired.
Improve diagonal railroad crossings: Diagonal railroad crossing problems may be solved by
paving an apron which would allow bicyclists to
cross at 90 degrees, by installing a flangeway
filler next to the track, or by providing warning
signs or markings.
Improve rough railroad crossings: Installing
rubberized crossings can eliminate roughness and
reduce long-term maintenance costs.
12 Planning
Remark or widen narrow lanes: In some

cases, it is possible to widen outside lanes by
remarking an existing street. In other cases, it may
require reconstruction. Either way, wide lanes
give bicyclists more room to maneuver in highvolume traffic.
Provide smoothly paved shoulders: Paving
full-depth shoulders on high-speed rural-type
roads gives cyclists more leeway and a less stressful ride.
Consolidate high-volume driveways: It may
be possible to reduce the number of commercial
driveways, to the benefit of passing motorists and
bicyclists alike.
Remove sight obstructions: Sight restrictions
should be removed through sight triangle ordinances and a routine program of sight obstruction
elimination.
Replace non-responsive traffic signal detectors: Some existing signals can be adjusted to
detect bicycles. In other cases, signal detector loops
may be replaced with bicycle-responsive models.
Eliminate curbside auto parking: In some
cases, it may be possible to eliminate on-street
parking. In other cases, widening the outside travel lane will make it easier for bicyclists to ride farther away from the parked cars.
Special bicycle facilities: Special bicycle facilities may solve particular problems or provide
opportunities for non-cyclists to try bicycling in a
less-threatening environment. Examples include
the following:
Bicycle routes: Identifying bicycle routes with
signs may be a way to help bicyclists get to particular destinations, avoid high-stress corridors or
ride on scenic but little-known roads.
Bike lanes: Bicycle lanes can delineate a portion
of the available roadway for bicycle traffic. In so
doing, they may reduce the sense of danger
among inexperienced bicyclists.
Bicycle paths: Separate bicycle paths can help
bicyclists get around a barrier or difficult traffic
January 1994
situation. They also may provide an enjoyable

recreational experience.
Bicycle bridges: Bridges may be constructed
that allow bicyclists to get over a river or other
linear barrier.
Other options: Other physical improvements
can provide support for bicycling as well.
Bicycle parking: Since every bicycle trip has a
destination, bike parking facilities are a necessary adjunct to physical improvements. Parking
should be provided at major traffic generators
(e.g., shops and schools) and at mass transit stations to encourage intermodal travel.
Bicycle/transit connections: A number of
communities have found that encouraging bicycling to transit stations results in increased transit use. Some, for example, have provided
secure bicycle parking, while others have developed systems for allowing bicycles on trains or
buses.
Non-physical improvements: Non-physical
improvements should be an integral part of any
overall plan for bicycling. The following are
options that may be considered.
Encouragement projects: Encouragement

may include such things as bike to work
week, during which people are encouraged to
ride their bicycles for utilitarian trips. It may
include recreational rides for families, publicity
campaigns or bicycle maps. Each of these
options can encourage people to get on their
bikes and ride.
Step 6: Select solutions and develop a plan

Developing an overall plan for bicycle transportation in a community is a process of matching the goals and objectives identified in Step 1
with the problems discovered in Step 3 and the
solutions identified in Step 5, in light of the
communitys fiscal limitations.
The ideas in the plan should help solve the
problems in order to achieve the goals in a timely fashion. Assembling cost information is an
important part of developing the plan. When
determining costs, it is best to consult local
technical staff who will implement the projects.
They also can point out cost-saving opportunities which otherwise might be missed.
The result will be an action plan which identifies those actions which can be easily accomplished and those which require major
investment.
Step 7: Implement projects
Bicycle maps: Bicycle maps provide an excellent way to let bicyclists know about route
options and large-scale hazards. Often, safety
and access information is included on the back.
Implementing the plan involves work on

three related but distinct tasks: policy development, long-range planning and short-range planning.
Bicyclist training: Bicyclist education and

training include many options, from developing
community awareness through public service
announcements to training adults and youngsters in on-road sessions.
Policy development: The first task may involve

the agency in reviewing and altering ordinances
and policies that affect routine functions; an
example would be the adoption of a bicyclesafe drain grate standard. Policies in the areas of
transportation, construction, zoning, parking
and law enforcement are particularly important
to review.
Bicycle enforcement: Enforcement of traffic

laws is basic to a comprehensive bicycle program. Some communities have implemented onbike patrols, while others have focused on
selective enforcement procedures. Selective
enforcement involves looking closely at the
communitys bicycle accident picture and
emphasizing those violations that lead directly
to the most crashes.
January 1994
Long-range planning: The second task involves

scheduling long-term investments that solve
major problems or provide major opportunities;
examples would be the development of a special
barrier-breaking bicycle bridge or planning a
lengthy bicycle path.
Planning 13
These projects may be identified in a bicycle

plan, but many should be worked into the project priority lists in other related plans, for
example, the communitys transportation and
recreation plans. Quite possibly, other unrelated
projects planned for the near future, with some
modifications, can solve bicycle problems as
well.
Some projects (e.g., a trail network) may be
implemented on a phased basis. In this way, it is
not only possible to pay the costs over a period
of years, but later phases may be altered based
on the experience of the earlier ones. As an
example, one community found that their 2.4 m
(8 ft) wide bicycle paths were getting far more
use than they had expected. Subsequent segments were paved to a 3.6 m (12 ft) width.
Other projects, such as a major bike bridge,
must be accomplished in one step. However, it
may be necessary for an agency to set aside
funds until it can afford to build the entire project.
Evaluation also requires watching for bicycle-related problems during an agencys routine
maintenance procedures.
The remaining chapters of this manual offer
detailed guidelines on how to accommodate
bicyclists in transportation projects and recreational corridors.
Short-range planning: The third task involves

scheduling short-term, mostly small-scale
improvements; examples of these might include
fixing potholes on a particular street or
installing a warning sign. Many of the items
identified in the hazard inventory fall under the
category of short-term planning. Typically, they
may be completed in one or two years.
Often, these improvements may be accomplished with as little as a maintenance work
order. In some cases, however, where many
small projects are needed, setting up an annual
bicycle spot improvement budget and a
schedule for completion will be necessary.
Step 8: Evaluate results and revise

Evaluating the success of an agencys bicycle plan is an ongoing function very similar to
the process of problem identification described
in Step 3. It requires paying attention to changes
in crash causes, bicycle use, and user satisfaction and making adjustments based on the
results. Looking at bicycle crash reports, doing
annual bicycle counts and observations, and
user surveys allow an agency to determine
whether the situation is improving and the goals
of the program are being met.
14 Planning
January 1994
3 Design Factors
An example of a bicycle-pedestrian bridge.
Planners and engineers have a wide range of

options to enhance bicycle transportation. On
the one hand, improvements can be simple,
inexpensive and involve minimal design consideration. An example might be approving a
change in bicycle-safe drainage grates used on
local road projects. On the other hand, improvements can involve substantial allocations of
funds, detailed design, and multi-year commitments to phased development. An example
might be an extensive community-wide bicycle
path network.
In order to adequately design for bicyclists,
particularly when approaching large-scale projects, one must have a basic understanding of
how bicycles operate. Most designers have an
understanding of motor vehicle operation, but
few have studied bicycle operation closely.
January 1994
Bicycle and bicyclist characteristics

The physical space occupied by a bicycle is
relatively modest. Generally, bicycles are
between 600 mm and 750 mm (24 in and 30 in)
wide from one end of the handlebars to the
other. An adult tricycle or a bicycle trailer, on
the other hand, is approximately 0.8 m to 1 m
(32 in to 40 in) wide. The length of a bicycle is
approximately 1.75 m (70 in); with a trailer, the
length grows to 2.55 m to 2.75 m (102 in to 110
in). In determining the design of off-road facilities, the width is more critical than the length.
The height of an adult bicyclist on a bicycle
is given as 2.3 m (88 in). This height takes into
consideration the possibility that the bicyclist
may be riding while standing up. Generally,
adult riders are between 1.5 m and 1.8 m (60 in
and 72 in) high while riding on the saddle.
Design Factors 15
While these dimensions give the physical

space occupied by the bicycle and rider, the
bicycle in motion requires additional space. One
must also consider clearances and maneuvering
allowances between the bicycle and static or
moving obstructions. The following are typical
clearances used in determining widths of bicycle facilities:
Typical clearances:
Maneuvering allowances:
To edge of pavement ................... 0.3 m (1.0 ft)
Between bikes ............................. 0.8 m (2.5 ft)
Between bikes and peds ... 0.8 m (2.5 ft)
Lateral clearances:
To parked cars ............................. 0.6 m (2.0 ft)
To curb drop-off .......................... 0.6 m (2.0 ft)
To utility poles, trees,
and hydrants.......................... 0.6 m (2.0 ft)
To soft shoulder ........................... 0.45 m (1.5 ft)
To sloped drop-off ....................... 0.3 m (1.0 ft)
Vertical clearance:
To overhead obstruction ... 0.6 m (2.0 ft)
Source: Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines; ITTE, 1972
In determining design speeds, it is important

to consider the average speeds of typical bicyclists, as well as other likely users. Studies have
shown that the average speed of bicyclists is 16
km/h (10 mph). However, these studies may not
account for the growing number of riders,
whose speeds may easily exceed 32 km/h (20
mph).
An important consideration in setting bicycle path curve radii, particularly those on downgrades is the effect of speed on turning ability.
When traveling at average speeds, a bicyclist
cannot turn the handlebars more than a few
degrees to either side without losing control.
Further, while bicyclists can lean into turns,
few riders are comfortable leaning at angles
above five to ten degrees. To do so puts the
inexperienced rider at risk of either sliding out
or hitting the inside pedal on the pavement. As a
result of these factors, bike path curve radii
should be designed in a conservative manner.
Another critical characteristic is stopping
distance. Due to differences in brake type and
quality and rider skill, stopping distances for
16 Design Factors
bicyclists traveling at the same speed may vary

dramatically. Some bicycles are equipped with
coaster brakes attached to the rear wheel hub;
others use caliper brakes that act on both
wheels. Further differences are found between
high quality caliper brakes with special brake
pads and inexpensive ones equipped with relatively slick pads.
In addition, wet weather seriously reduces
the effectiveness of most bike brakes. According to Pedal Cycle Braking Performance:
Effects of Brake Block and Rim Design
(Watt, TRRL 1980), some common bicycle
brakes take over four times as far to stop in the
rain as they do under dry conditions. Further,
bikes equipped with aluminum alloy rims stop
between twice and four times as quickly in the
rain as similar bikes equipped with steel rims.
Complicating all these factors are the varying abilities of the riders themselves. Skilled
bicyclists can stop far more quickly than can
unskilled riders.
As a result, stopping sight distances are
important factors to consider, particularly when
designing curves and intersections on separate
trail systems.
Design options
The rest of this manual describes specific
design features and approaches for accommodating bicyclists both on- and off-road. The topics include:
Roadway improvements
Bicycle lanes
Bicycle routes
Bicycle paths
Supplemental facilities
Operation and maintenance
January 1994
4 Roadway Improvements
Detail showing types of grates to be used according to
water flow.
Type G
Sag
Grates and resurfacing: Because bicycles are more
sensitive than motor vehicles to pavement irregularities, during construction appurtenances should
not be left projecting above the pavement surface.
January 1994
Water flow
B
A
Section BB
Type E Grate
Section AA
603 mm
(23.75 in)
Grate cover replacement and retrofit: Unsafe grate
Type F
Grate
A
908 mm
(35.75 in)
Section AA
603 mm
(23.75 in)
covers should be replaced with either Type E, F or

G standard grate covers as shown in Figure 4-1.
For more complete details, refer to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation
Roadway Design Manual, and Roadway
Standard Drawings Manual, std. no. 840.03.
Identifying a hazardous grate with a pavement marking, as indicated in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
is generally unacceptable, especially with parallel bar grate inlets. Because of the serious consequences of a bicyclists missing the pavement
marking in the dark or being forced over such a
grate inlet by other traffic, these grates should
replaced as soon after they are identified as practicable.
Type F
908 mm
(35.75 in)
Drainage grates
Drainage grate inlets and utility covers can
be serious hazards to bicyclists. Unsafe grates
can divert a cyclists front wheel, causing a
crash. Parallel bar drainage grate inlets are the
most hazardous because they can trap the front
wheel of a bicycle causing loss of steering control and the bar spacing is such that they can
allow narrow bicycle wheels to drop into the
grates, resulting in damage to the bicycle wheel
and frame and/or injury to the bicyclist.
Type E
Water flow
603 mm
(23.75 in)
Bicycles will be ridden on all highways

where they are permitted. As a result, all new
highways, except those where bicyclists legally
will be prohibited, should be designed and constructed under the assumption that they will be
used by bicyclists. Bicycle-safe design practices, as described in this guide, should be followed to avoid costly retrofit improvements.
Roadway conditions should be examined and,
where necessary, such improvements as safe
drainage grates and railroad crossings, smooth
pavements and traffic signals responsive to bicycles should be provided.
A
908 mm
(35.75 in)
Type G
Grate
Section AA
Figure 4-1: Bicycle-safe drainage grates approved by

the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Roadway Improvements 17
Repeated resurfacings without adjusting the utility cover neck flange or drainage grate frames
result in the covers being sunken below the
pavement surface, a hazardous condition to bicycle traffic. Therefore, all manholes, inlets, lampholes and water valve boxes should be brought
to grade by either lowering or raising as required
in all new construction, reconstruction and resurfacing projects.
When a new roadway is designed, all grates
and covers should be bicycle safe. Gutters
designed for flow to curb-opening inlets are not
considered ridable because of the warping of the
gutter for drainage. Such warping may result in
adverse handling effects.
Large radii
desirable
ks
RR
Direction
of bike
travel
c
Tra
Widen to
permit right
angle
crossing
Railroad crossings
For bicycle traffic, there are two main problems with at-grade railroad crossings. First, if
the tracks cross the roadway at less than 45
degrees, a bicyclists front wheel may be diverted by the rail or trapped in the flangeway, causing loss of steering control. Second, a rough
crossing regardless of angle may cause
wheel damage or may cause a bicyclist to crash.
Angled crossings: When railroad tracks cross
highways or bikeways at-grade, they should do

so as close to a right angle as possible. If this is
not possible, consideration should be given to
the following options:
(1.) As shown in Figure 4-2, widening the
approaching roadway, bike lane or shoulder will
allow the bicyclist to cross at approximately 90
degrees without veering into the path of overtaking traffic. The minimum amount of widening should be 1.8 m (6 ft); however, 2.4 m (8 ft)
is desirable, depending on the amount of available right-of-way. Adequate tapers should be
provided.
(2.) On low-speed, lightly-travelled railroad
tracks, commercially available flangeway fillers
can eliminate the gap next to the rail (see Figure
4-3). The filler normally fills the gap between
the inside railbed and the rail. When a train
wheel rolls over it, the flangeway filler compresses. This solution, however, is not acceptable for high-speed rail lines, as the filler will
not compress fast enough and the train may
derail.
Bike Lane
or Wide
Curb
Lane
Figure 4-2: Flared roadway permits bicyclists to cross

angled railroad crossing at or near 90 degrees.
Source: AZ Bicycle Facilities Planning & Design Guidelines; AZDOT, 1988
(3.) In some cases, abandoned tracks can be

removed, completely eliminating the problem.
(4.) If no other solution is available, warning
signs and pavement markings should be installed
in accordance with the MUTCD. While there is
no approved sign for this specific situation, a
W11-1 warning sign with an appropriate subplate message (e.g., BIKES CROSS AT RIGHT
ANGLE) may provide sufficient warning for
bicyclists.
Filler strip
Rail
Side pad
Center pad
Side shim
Center shim
Tie
Figure 4-3: Cross section of rubberized railroad crossing

with flangeway filler strip for low-speed angle crossings.
January 1994
Rail
Side pad
Center pad
Side shim
Center shim
Tie
Figure 4-4: Cross section of rubberized railroad crossing

for rough perpendicular crossings.
Rough perpendicular crossings: Rough and
uneven timber or paved perpendicular crossings
can cause control problems and equipment damage for bicyclists. Regular maintenance and
replacement, if necessary, can solve the problem. However, in some cases the best long-term
solution is to install a rubberized crossing (see
Figure 4-4). Such crossings generally consist of
a concrete base with a rubberized surface.
While these are relatively expensive to install,
there are significant savings in long-term maintenance costs because of their stability.
Pavement quality
Pavement surface irregularities can do
more than cause an unpleasant ride. While
automobile suspensions can compensate for
surface roughness and potholes, and wide tires
can span cracks, bicycles, with their narrow
tires and lack of suspension, have difficulty
handling such hazards. Gaps between pavement slabs or drop-offs at overlays parallel to
the direction of travel can trap a bicycle wheel
and cause loss of control. Holes and bumps can
cause bicyclists to swerve into the path of
motor vehicle traffic. To the extent practicable,
pavement surfaces should be free of irregularities.
The right lane or shoulder generally should
be uniform in width. While skilled bicyclists
guide off the lane stripe and ride a predictable
straight line, many riders will move right or
left depending on the width of the lane or presence of shoulders. A road which varies widely
in width will encourage such unpredictable
behavior.
On older pavements it may be necessary to
fill joints, adjust utility covers or, in extreme
January 1994
cases, overlay the pavement to make it suitable

for bicycling. See Drainage Grates (page 21)
for guidance on grates and utility covers.
When new pavement overlays are added to
curb and gutter sections, the new asphalt should
be feathered to allow the new surface to meet
the gutter pan smoothly. Failure to feather the
new overlay into the existing pavement can
result in a hazardous longitudinal lip at the edge
of the new asphalt. In some cases, the old pavement may need to be milled. Generally, paving
over a concrete gutter is not satisfactory for several reasons: (1) the joint line will probably
come through the new asphalt, causing a longitudinal crack, (2) paving to the curb may affect
the drainage and lower the effective height of
the curb.
Chip sealing a road extends the life of the
pavement at relatively low cost. However, the
process can cause bicyclists serious problems.
When applying chip seal coats to existing
streets, removal of excess gravel at the earliest
possible convenience is important. Since passing motor traffic sweeps the gravel off to the
side of the road, the gravel tends to collect in
piles high enough to cause bicyclists to crash.
For this reason, bicyclists will often ride in the
area cleared by motorists tires. Also, chip sealing tends to roughen the surface and is not the
preferred treatment for roads where bicycle traffic is to be encouraged.
Slurry seal, on the other hand, can provide a
smooth surface to a previously rough shoulder
or lane. While it should only be applied to
sound pavement, it is an inexpensive treatment
for improving the surface for bicyclists. As with
chip sealing, any extra material should be
removed as soon as possible.
Traffic control devices

Bicycles should be considered in the selection and provision of traffic control devices.
While most traffic signs apply equally to
motorists and to bicyclists, bicyclists have special needs in two primary areas: (1) signal timing and actuation and (2) bicycle-related signing
and marking.
Traffic signal timing: Bicycles should be considered in the timing of traffic signal cycles and in
the choice of a traffic detection system. An
average bicyclist can cross an intersection

under the same signal phasing arrangement as
a motor vehicle. However, on multi-lane
streets, clearance intervals should be long
enough to allow bicyclists to cross. If necessary, an all-around-red-clearance interval may
be used. To check the clearance interval, use a
bicyclists speed of 16 km/h (10 mph) and a
perception/reaction/ braking time of 2.5 seconds.
Quadrupole Loop
detects most strongly in center
sharp cut-off of sensitivity
used in bike lanes
signals should be sensitive to bicycles and

should be located in the bicyclists expected
path, including left turn lanes. The preferred
options for loop detectors are as follows (see
Figure 4-5):
(1) In shared roadway situations, where
the exact location of the bicycle cannot be easily predicted, the diagonal quadrupole loop is
best, since it is bicycle-sensitive over its entire
width while being relatively immune to false
calls caused by motor vehicles in adjacent
lanes.
(2) In bicycle lane or bicycle path situations, where the location of the bicycle can be
easily predicted, a quadrupole detector works
well. The quadrupole loop is highly sensitive
over the center wires, less sensitive over the
outer wires and relatively insensitive to motor
vehicles in adjacent lanes.
(3) Standard loops are the least desirable
for sensing bicycles. These loops are square or
rectangular in shape and are most sensitive
over the wires that form the outer boundary of
the loop. While some are sensitive enough
directly over the wires to detect bicycles, the
bicyclist must know just where to stop, and
why its important to stop there.
For this reason, standard loops are the least
desirable and should be used only in locations
where bicycle traffic is not expected. Some
standard loop/amplifier combinations cannot
be adjusted to reliably detect bicycles without
detecting motor vehicles in adjacent traffic
lanes. These loops should be replaced with
bicycle-sensitive models.
In special cases, pedestrian activated buttons may be mounted near the curb for bicycle
use. This approach may be useful where a
bicycle path crosses a highway, for example.
20
Roadway Improvements
Direction of travel
Signal actuation: Detectors for traffic-actuated
Diagonal Quadrupole Loop

sensitive over whole area
sharp cut-off of sensitivity
used in shared lanes
Standard Loop
detects most strongly over wires
gradual cut-off
used for advanced detection
Figure 4-5: Recommended loop types for bicycle detection. In most shared-road situations, the diagonal
quadrupole is preferred.
Source: Traffic Signal Bicycle Detection Study; City of San Diego, 1985
January 1994
However, in most roadway situations, the

need for bicyclists to position themselves at
intersections according to their destinations
(e.g., in left-turn lanes or to the left of a rightturn-only lane) makes such push buttons the
least desirable option.
Programmed visibility heads: Where programmed visibility signal heads are used, they
should be checked to ensure that they are visible
to bicyclists who may be positioned near the
right edge of the roadway.
Signing and marking: The following guidance
from the MUTCD should be followed when
installing signing or marking for bicycles:
Traffic control devices, whether they are
intended for motorists or bicyclists, must
adhere to five basic requirements to be able to
perform their intended function. They must
1. Fulfill a need.
2. Command attention.
3. Convey a clear, simple meaning.
4. Command respect of road users.
5. Give adequate time for proper response.
Part IX of the MUTCD, reproduced in

Appendix 4, should be consulted for guidance
on bicycle signs and pavement markings. Where
bicyclists are expected to use different routings
than motorists, directional signing should be
used to confirm to bicyclists that the special
routing leads to their destination. Bike route
signs are discussed in Chapter 6, bike lane signs
are discussed in Chapter 5, and bike path signs
are discussed in Chapter 7, with further details
given in Part IX of the MUTCD or in Part IX of
the Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Other
signs used specifically in North Carolina are discussed in Appendix 5.
Structures
Structures like bridges and tunnels can provide key links in any bicycle transportation system. Since they are often expensive to build or
modify, structures tend to be replaced less often
than sections of roadway by comparison and
they tend to be relatively narrow. However,
because they often connect networks of local
roads on either end, improving a structure, or
January 1994
considering bicyclists needs in the construction

of a new one or renovation of an existing one,
can provide significant benefits for bicycle
users.
The priority an agency places on providing
bicycle-related improvements in any specific
case should be based on consideration of the
following factors.
Traffic conditions:
Bicycle traffic volume (potential or actual): A structure on a popular bicycling route is a
better candidate than one on a road with little or
no potential for bicycle use.
Bicycle crash experience: Given that relatively few serious bicycle crashes are reported to
the police, a structure with a history of reported
bicycle crashes may be the site of many unreported crashes as well. As a result, it should
receive close scrutiny.
Motor vehicle traffic volume: A high-volume
structure is more likely to need bicycle accommodations than a low-volume one, due to the
increased likelihood of conflicts.
Percent of truck and/or RV traffic: A structure with a high percentage of truck and/or RV
traffic is more likely to need bicycle accommodations than one with little or no such traffic.
Traffic speed: High traffic speeds (i.e., over 70
km/h (45 mph)) are associated with a significant
percentage of bicycling fatalities and structures
on such routes need close attention.
Land use and the transportation system:
Proximity to bicycle traffic generators: A
structure that serves many nearby residents and
connects to popular recreation or commercial
areas is likely to attract more bicycle use than
one far away from any community.
Alternate routes: If there are no suitable alternate routes, the importance of a particular structure will be greater than if there are numerous
options.
Connecting roadways: If the structure connects segments of freeway or expressway, it is
less likely to be in demand than one that connects surface streets, like collectors or arterials.
Bicycle accommodations: A structure that
connects existing or planned bicycle facilities
(e.g., bicycle lanes or routes) is a good candidate
for bicycle-related improvements.
The structures geometrics:
Elevation: Fixed span bridges that arch high
for the passage of ships are less attractive for
most bicyclists than are flatter structures.
However, on steep structures, the presence of
slow-moving bicyclists on the ascent and fast
moving bicyclists on the descent must be considered. Wider shoulders to accomodate conditions may be appropriate.
Width: Because passing opportunities are

more limited on two-lane structures than on
multi-lane structures, the former structures
are more likely locations for bicycle/motor
vehicle conflicts.
Bridges
Improving a bridge for bicycle use involves
analyzing four major areas of concern: (1) static
obstructions, (2) surface conditions, (3) bridge
deck width, and (4) bridge approaches.
Static obstructions: Bicycle-safe bridge railings (Figure 4-6) shall be used on bridges
specifically designed to carry bicycle traffic,
and on bridges where specific protection of
bicyclists is deemed necessary. Bicycle rails
WL
1372 mm (minimum)
(54 in)
381 mm
686 mm (minimum)
(15 in)
(27 in)
1372 mm (minimum)
(54 in)
813 mm (minimum)
254 mm
(32 in)
305 mm (10 in)
(max)
686 mm (minimum)
(12
in)
(27 in)
W
W
WL
W
P/2
P/2
Notes:
1. Loadings on left are applied to rails.
2. Loads on right are applied to posts.
3. The shapes of rail members are illustrative
only. Any material or combination of materials
listed in Article 2.7 of Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges (AASHTO, 1989) may be
used in any configuration.
P/2
1372 mm (minimum)
(54 in)
254 mm 254 mm
813 mm (minimum)
(10 in)
(10 in)
(32 in)
W
WL
W
P
Nomenclature:
P = Highway design loading
h = Height of top of top rail above reference
surface
L = Post spacing
w = Bicycle loading per unit length of rail
Figure 4-6: Combination traffic and bicycle bridge railings. A railing height of 1372 mm (54 in) will protect bicyclists
from toppling over.
Source: AASHTO Standards & Specifications for Highway Bridges, 1989
January 1994
used on highway bridges shall be in acordance

with the latest American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications and shall be crash-tested in
accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The minimum height
of a railing used to protect a bicyclist shall be
1,372 mm (54 in), measured from the top of the
riding surface to the top of the rail. In cases
where existing railings are below this height,
consideration should be given to retrofitting an
additional bicycle railing to the top, bringing
the total height to 1,372 mm (54 in).
Guardrails on bridge approaches should be
designed with the needs of bicyclists in mind.
As a general rule, a roadside barrier should be
placed as far from the traveled way as conditions permit. A minimum offset from the edge
of the traffic lane or paved shoulder of 1.2 m (4
ft) is desirable. In situations where the slope on
the far side of the guardrail is excessive or the
hazard serious, or where the shoulder or outside
lanes are narrow, consideration should be given
to attaching a bicycle-safe railing to the top of
the guardrail. This will bring the total height to
1,372 mm (54 in).
Surface conditions: On all bridge decks, special care should be taken to ensure that smooth
bicycle-safe expansion joints are used. In cases
where joints are uneven, rubberized joint fillers
or covers may be considered.
The bridge deck should not pose a hazard
for bicyclists. Only bicycle-safe grates and
drains should be used. Steel decking on draw
bridges or swing bridges can cause steering difficulties for bicyclists. In general, such bridges
should not be signed as bicycle facilities without determining the decks effect on bicycle
handling.
The accumulation of roadside debris may
cause problems for bicyclists, forcing them to
ride farther out from the right edge than many
would prefer. Regular maintenance, particularly
in the right half of the outside lane and on
paved shoulders, is important.
Bridge deck width: Two primary options are
available for accommodating bicyclists on
highway bridges (see Figure 4-7). First, 1.2 m
(4 ft) (minimum) shoulders may be added to
January 1994
Shoulder
Outside lane
1.8 m
(6 ft)
Edge line
Bridge with shoulders
Sidewalk
Gutter
Outside lane
0.6 m
(2 ft)
4.2 m
(14 ft)
Lane line
Bridge with curb and gutter, and wide outside lanes
Figure 4-7: Suggested widths for bicycle

accommodations on bridges.
each side. Second, a widened outside lane at

least 4.2 m (14 ft) wide may be used on each
side of curb and gutter sections. In deciding
between these options, the primary considerations are traffic speed and volume.
On bridges with higher posted speeds, the
effects of windblast described in FHWA
research (Figure 4-8) may be offset by providing a separation distance between bicyclists and
passing vehicles. This is particularly important
where a significant percentage of truck or RV
traffic is present; in such cases, additional
width beyond the recommended 1.2 m (4 ft) of
paved shoulder is useful. On bridges with
lower posted speeds, windblast effects are not
particularly serious, and, hence, widths are
determined more by physical clearances.
Bridge approaches: Bicycle provisions,
whether shoulders or wide outside lanes,
should continue for at least 30 m (100 ft) on
either side of the bridge in order to ensure a
safe transition. If on- or off-ramps or intersections are present, shoulders or wide outside
lanes should continue at least as far as the
ramps or intersection.
On lower-speed bridges and ramps, the
crossing is similar to that used for turn lanes
and the extra width should simply be added to
the right-most through lane. On high-speed

bridges and ramps, the shoulder striping should
not cross over the ramp, but should follow the
ramp. Another shoulder stripe should pick up on
the far side of the ramp.
If bicycle lanes are used, they should be
designed as described in Chapter 5. On lowspeed bridges, the bicycle lane stripe should be
dropped before the ramp and picked up after, as
shown in Figure 5-4(1) and Figure 9-5 in the
MUTCD.
as barriers for bicycle travel.

Providing adequate width is important for
safety, particularly on high-volume roads and
highways. When traffic speeds are low, this may
be done through the use of wide curb lanes. In
high-speed tunnels, the preferred solution is a
minimum 1.2 m (4 ft) wide outside shoulder.
Debris can build up at the right edge of the
roadway and if the tunnel is not well lighted,
bicyclists going from daylight to relative darkness may not immediately see the hazard. For
this reason, providing adequate lighting and regular maintenance are important for bicyclists
safety.
If a high-speed tunnel or underpass is
particularly narrow or contains a serious
sight obstruction, then the structure may
not be appropriate for bicycle use. Alternate routes should be investigated. However, there may be some circumstances where
Tunnels, underpasses and interchanges

Tunnels, underpasses and interchanges may
cause difficulties for bicycle users because of
the grades involved, pavement widths and surface, and levels of lighting. Like bridges, these
structures tend to be long-term investments and
are not replaced or upgraded as often as connecting roadways. For this reason, they may act
44.5 N
(10 lbs)
He
av
yv
eh
icl
35.6 N
(8 lbs)
sp
ee
Side force on cyclist N (lbs)
11
2
km
/h
26.7 N
(6 lbs)
(7
=9
ph
6k
m/
17.8 N
(4 lbs)
h(
60
Est. tolerance
limit
mp
h)
=8
0k
= 64
8.9 N
(2 lbs)
m/h
km/h
= 48 km
(50
(40
mp
h)
mph
/h (30 m
0.6 m
(2 ft)
1.2 m
(4 ft)
ph)
1.8 m
(6 ft)
2.4 m
(8 ft)
3.0 m
(10 ft)
3.6 m
(12 ft)
Separation distance m (ft)
Figure 4-8: Aerodynamic forces caused by heavy motor vehicles passing bicyclists.
Source: A Bikeway Criteria Digest; USDOT Federal Highway Administration, 1977.
January 1994
bicyclist-actuated flashing lights may be used to

warn motorists of the presence of bicyclists in
the tunnel or underpass. These lights flash for a
given period of time after a bicyclist hits the
button, warning motorists of his or her presence
ahead.
If the tunnel or underpass is below the normal grade of the connecting roadway, any extra
width should be provided on the climbing side
of the roadway, since bicyclists will be going
slower as they exit.
space and decrease conflicts with faster-moving

motor vehicle traffic.
Width: If it is intended that bicyclists ride on
shoulders, the paved surface must be at least 1.2

m (4 ft) in width (Figure 4-9). If motor vehicle
speeds exceed 60 km/h (35 mph); if the percentage of trucks, buses and recreation vehicles is
high; or if static obstructions exist at the right
side, then additional width is desirable (see Figure 4-8).
Shoulders
Clearances: Clearance from the edge of pavement to the plane of the foreslope of a ditch
should be 0.6 m (2 ft) minimum (Figure 4-9). If
the slope is greater than 2:1, the clearance
should be 0.9 m (3 ft). If a guardrail is provided
adjacent to the paved shoulder, a clearance from
the edge of pavement of 1.2 m (4 ft) is preferred.
Road signs and other vertical obstructions
should be offset 1.8 m (6 ft) minimum from edge
of pavement.
On urban streets, wide outside through lanes

and bicycle lanes are usually preferred over
shoulders for bicycle use. In rural areas or on
roads with relatively few driveways and intersections, smoothly paved shoulders are preferred by
many bicyclists. Shoulders also benefit motor
vehicle traffic. Generally, the slope of the roadway should continue across the shoulder.
According to AASHTOs Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
paved or stabilized shoulders provide (1) usable
area for vehicles to pull onto during emergency
situations, (2) elimination of rutting and dropoff
adjacent to the edge of travel lane, (3) adequate
cross slope for drainage of roadway, (4) reduced
maintenance and (5) lateral support for roadway
base and surface course.
Where funding is limited, adding or improving shoulders on uphill sections first will give
slow-moving bicyclists needed maneuvering
min
1.2 m
(4 ft)
Paved
Shoulder
Pavement quality: Shoulders should be smoothly paved and have adequate strength and stability
to support occasional motor vehicle tire loads
under all weather conditions without rutting or
other surface variations. The thickness of shoulder paving should be based on usual design consideration appropriate for each situation,
although full-depth pavement is recommended
with few exceptions.
CL
Existing Roadway
min
1.2 m
(4 ft)
min
0.6 m*
(2 ft)
Clearance from edge of paved shoulder to guardrail or drainage ditch foreslope

min
1.8 m
(6 ft)
*0.9 m (3 ft) min. if foreslope steeper than 2:1
min
1.5 m
(5 ft)
Paved
Shoulder
CL
Clearance from edge of paved shoulder to roadside sign
Figure 4-9: Minimum clearances and widths for paved shoulders intended for bicycle travel.
Note: See NCDOT Roadway Design Manual; in some cases values from Section 1-4B will govern.
January 1994
CL
150 mm
(6 in)
4.2 m
(14 ft)
0.6 m
(2 ft)
9.6 m
(32 ft)
0.6 m
(2 ft)
4.2 m
(14 ft)
150 mm
(6 in)
(1) Two-lane roadway with wide lanes

CL
19.2 m
(64 ft)
150 mm
(6 in)
0.6 m
(2 ft)
3.9 m
(13 ft)
3.3 m
(11 ft)
3.6 m
(12 ft)
3.3 m
(11 ft)
3.9 m
(13 ft)
0.6 m
(2 ft)
150 mm
(6 in)
(2) Typical 5-lane roadway with curb & gutter and differential striping
CL
20.4 m
(68 ft)
150 mm
(6 in)
0.6 m
(2 ft)
4.2 m
(14 ft)
3.6 m
(12 ft)
3.6 m
(12 ft)
3.6 m
(12 ft)
4.2 m
(14 ft)
0.6 m
(2 ft)
150 mm
(6 in)
(3) Five-lane roadway with curb & gutter, standard 3.6 m (12 ft)
inside lanes, and widened curb lanes
Figure 4-10: Options for creating wide outside lanes for bicycle traffic in different situations.
When it is necessary to add paved shoulders

to roadways for bicycle use, paving an asphalt
panel 3 m (10 ft) in width is preferred. This
eliminates a joint at the edge of the existing
pavement and allows the new asphalt to feather
into the existing pavement between the motor
vehicle wheel tracks. It provides a smooth and
visually appealing improvement. White pavement edge lines, 100 mm - 150 mm (4 in to 6
in), should be used to delineate the shoulder
from the motor vehicle lanes.
Rumble strips
Rumble strips and other devices designed to
alert sleepy motorists can be a danger to bicyclists traveling on shoulders or near the right
edge of the roadway. Where bicycle traffic is
allowed, asphalt concrete dikes, raised traffic bars
or other similar devices should only be considered on shoulders of roads where there is a welldocumented safety problem.
In cases where rumble strips are used, additional shoulder width may be provided on the
right side of the rumble strip.
Wide outside lanes

The desirable motor vehicle lane width is
3.6 m (12 ft). On roadways without separate
bicycle lanes, a right-hand (outside) through
lane wider than 3.6 m (12 ft) can better accomodate both bicycles and motor vehicles. The additional width on the outside lane also improves
sight distances and provides more maneuvering
room for vehicles turning into the roadway. In
many cases where there is a wide outside
through lane, motorists will not need to change
lanes to pass a bicyclist. Thus, on roadways
with bicycle traffic, widening the outside lane
can have a beneficial effect on capacity.
Width: On roadways that accomodate both bicy-
cles and motor vehicles within the travel lanes,

4.2 m (14 ft) of usable width should be provided
on the outside through lanes. Studies have
shown that any additional width on outside
through lanes is beneficial. In determining the
usable width of an outside lane, adjustments
need to be made for obstructions. Bicyclists shy
away from obstructions such as drainage gates,
parked vehicles and longitudinal ridges between
January 1994
the pavement and gutter sections. An extra 0.3

m (1 ft) of shy distance should be added for
flush or depressed obstructions, such as a joint
or soft shoulder. If a raised obstruction, such as
a curb and gutter, is present, an extra 0.6 m (2
ft) shy distance should be added to the raised
face of the curb. If drainage grates are located in
the gutter or near the right edge of the roadway,
they should not be included in the calculations
of usable width.
Some experts have recommended 4.5 m (15
ft) of usable width for an actual wide outside
through lane. However, widths greater than 4.2
m (14 ft) can encourage the operation of two
motor vehicles in one lane. This is likely to
occur near intersections with heavy turn volumes during periods of peak congestion. Such
conditions may reflect a need to consider
improvements at the intersection. At intersections with separate right-turn lanes, the outside
through lane should be widened to accomodate
bicycles.
The additional width for wide outside lanes
to accomodate bicycle traffic should be introduced by widening the roadway pavement.
However, on multi-lane roadway sections, if the
outside lane width cannot be increased by
widening the pavement, the lane striping may be
shifted to narrow the inside lane(s) while widening the outside lane. No inside lane width
should be reduced to less than 3.3 m (11 ft) for
this purpose. Narrowing an inside lane from 3.6
m to 3.3 m (12 ft to 11 ft) can reduce the lanes
capacity up to 5 percent. When considering this
approach, the volume of truck traffic should be
taken into account. In general, 3.3 m (11 ft)
lanes should not be considered if the truck volumes are greater than 5 percent of the total traffic volume.
unequal lane widths with widened outside

curb lanes are desirable to accommodate
bicycles when the following conditions apply;
(1.) Control of access is not provided.
(2.) Motor vehicle traffic is not more than 60
percent (Level of Service C) of the routes
capacity. (If greater than 60 percent, alternate
bicycle accomodations should be considered, if
feasible).
(3.) A minimum width of 3.3 m (11 ft) can
be provided on each inside lane.
(4.) Truck traffic is not greater than 5 percent of the total motor vehicle traffic.
Existing facilities: Widening outside lanes to
accommodate bicycles can be provided by
introducing unequal lane width pavement markings on existing multi-lane facilities. When the
above conditions are applicable, unequal lane
width pavement markings should be introduced
to existing curb and gutter facilities. This is best
accomplished when the facility is resurfaced.
Figure 4-10 (2) shows the prefered location for
unequal lane width pavement markings to
accommodate bicycle traffic on an existing fivelane, 19.2 m (64 ft), face-to-face curb and gutter
section commonly used in North Carolina.
New facilities: Outside lanes that are 4.2 m (14
ft) wide should be constructed on new multilane
curb and gutter facilities when bicycle traffic is
anticipated and the above conditions are applicable. Figure 4-10 (3) shows the preferred typical section with appropriate pavement markings
to accommodate bicycle traffic on a new curb
and gutter roadway.
Two-lane roadways: A 4.2 m (14 ft) usable

lane width is desirable to accommodate both
motor vehicles and bicycles within the travel
lanes. Figure 4-10 (1) shows the recommended
typical section for a two-lane curb and gutter
roadway when bicycles share the travel lanes
with motor vehicles.
Multi-lane roadways: For curb and gutter roadway sections in urban and suburban areas, with
more than one lane in each direction of travel,
January 1994
January 1994
5 Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle lanes are portions of the roadway designated exclusively or primarily for bicycles.
Introduction
Bicycle lanes may be considered when it is
desirable to delineate available road space for
preferential use by bicyclists and motorists.
Bicycle lanes should always be one-way facilities and carry traffic in the same direction as
adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Two-way bicycle
lanes on one side of the roadway are unacceptable because they promote riding against the
flow of motor vehicle traffic. Wrong-way riding
is a major cause of bicycle accidents and violates the rules of the road stated in the Motor
Vehicle Laws of North Carolina. Bicycle
lanes on one-way streets should be on the right
side of the street, except in areas where a bicycle lane on the left will decrease the number of
conflicts (e.g., those caused by heavy bus traffic).
While there are no universally accepted
objective criteria for determining the need for
bicycle lanes, the following factors are important considerations.
ing users to a particular street but do not necessarily attract new bicyclists.
Bicycling demand: Simply striping bicycle

lanes will not necessarily create bicycle use.
Surveys in several cities with active bicycle programs have shown that bike lanes attract exist-
Traffic conditions: High volume multi-lane

highways with numerous grade separated
interchanges, or multi-lane roadways with
continuous center-turn lanes and high volumes
January 1994
Potential origins and destinations: In order to

attract bicyclists, there must be a nearby population of likely users and potential destinations
within riding distance. According to most surveys, a 6 km (4 mi) radius defines the maximum
bicycle trip for most casual users.
Available alternatives: When considering alternate routes for bicycle lane installation, the
designer must remember that most bicyclists
will choose the route that best combines direct
access with low traffic volumes.
Surrounding land use: Strip development or
other areas with many commercial or institutional driveways and, therefore, significant volumes of right-turning traffic, tend to make
unsuitable locations for bicycle lanes. In such
cases, wide curb lanes may be more appropriate.
Bicycle Lanes 29
of motor vehicles make less suitable roads for

bicycle lanes. In such cases, bicycle lanes can
attract novice or child bicyclists to a potentially
hazardous situation.
Geometric conditions: Adequate pavement surface, bicycle-safe grate inlets, safe railroad
crossings and traffic signals responsive to bicycles should always be provided on roadways
where bicycle lanes are being designated. Generally, roads with many complicated intersections (e.g., those with multiple right turn lanes)
are more difficult locations to modify for inclusion of bicycle lanes. In these situations, wide
curb lanes should be the preferred option for
accommodating bicyclists.
Other considerations: Bicycle lanes are not
advisable on long, downgrades of 4 percent or
more, where bicycle speeds greater than 48
km/h (30 mph) are expected. As grades
increase, downhill bicycle speeds will increase,
which increases the problem of riding near the
edge of the roadway. In such situations, bicycle
speeds can approach those of motor vehicles,
and experienced bicyclists will generally move
into the traffic lanes to increase sight distance
and maneuverability. If bike lanes are to be
striped, additional width should be provided to
accommodate higher bicycle speeds.
Striping bike lanes next to curbs where
parking is prohibited only during certain hours
must be done only in conjunction with special
signing to designate the hours bike lanes are to
be effective. This type of bike lane should be
considered only if the vast majority of bicycle
travel would occur during the hours of the park-
ing prohibition, and only if there is a firm commitment to enforce the parking prohibition.
Because of the obvious complications, this type
of bike lane is not encouraged for general application.
Figure 5-1 gives several other cautions
taken from the Federal Highway Administrations Safety and Locational Criteria for
Bicycle Facilities.
Bicycle lane delineation

Bicycle lane lines should be solid, 100 mm
to 150 mm (4 in to 6 in) wide, and marked with
white traffic paint. The width of the lines
should match the width of other lines on the
particular roadway in question. Thermoplastic
and preformed tape can be slippery when wet,
causing loss of control for bicyclists, and
should, therefore, not be used.
Raised barriers (e.g., raised traffic bars and
asphalt concrete dikes) or raised pavement
markers should not be used to delineate bicycle
lanes. Raised barriers prevent motorists from
merging into bike lanes before making right
turns, restrict the movement of bicyclists desiring to enter or exit bike lanes and impede routine maintenance.
Bike lane markings should be placed a constant distance from the outside motor vehicle
lane. Bike lanes with parking permitted should
not be directed toward the curb at intersections
or localized areas where parking is prohibited.
Such a practice prevents bicyclists from following a straight course. Where transitions from
one type of bike lane to another are necessary,
smooth tapers should be provided. (See the
MUTCD, Section 3B-8 for taper design.)
Principal problems with bike lane applications

Provision of inadequate lane width or use of unrideable street surface as the bike lane area;
Abrupt termination of lanes at hazard or constraint situations, creating a facility which leads
bicyclists to a trap; also transitions which force awkward bicyclist movements at other termination points;
Use of non-standard and poorly visible lane demarkation signs and markings which create
uncertainties in motorist and bicyclist understanding of lane presence and purpose;
Lane configuration and lane use ordinances which prevent the bicyclist from establishing
proper position with respect to motor vehicle traffic at intersections as well as for mid-block
turns into driveways; and
Lane use ordinances which conflict with reasonable bicyclist desires to leave the lane in order
30 Bicycle Lanes
January 1994
Bicycle lane surface quality

Bicycle lanes should be paved to the same
standards as adjacent traffic lanes. The surface
to be used by bicyclists should be smooth, free
of potholes, and the pavement edge uniform.
For rideability on new construction, the finished
surface of bikeways should be smooth and true
to the required cross section and grade. The surface should conform to the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures, Section 610-13, Surface Requirements. Further, manholes, drainage grates and
utility covers should be located outside the bicycle lane. For more advice on pavement quality,
see Chapter 4.
Bicycle lane widths

Under ideal conditions, minimum bicycle
lane width is 1.2 m (4 ft). However, certain edge
conditions dictate additional desirable bicycle
lane width. Additional width also is desirable
when the width of the adjacent traffic lane is less
than 3.6 m (12 ft). This is an important addition
because the effective clearance between a bicyclist and adjacent traffic is a function of the combined width of both the bike lane and the
adjacent traffic lane.
To examine the width requirements for bicycle lanes, Figure 5.2 shows four usual locations
for such facilities in relation to the roadway. Figure 5.2 (1) depicts bicycle lanes on an urban
curbed street where a parking lane is provided.
The minimum bicycle lane width for this location is 1.5 m (5 ft). Bicycle lanes should always
be placed between the parking lane and the
motor vehicle lanes. Bicycle lanes between the
curb and the parking lane create hazards for
bicyclists from opening car doors and poor visibility at intersections and driveways. They also
prohibit bicyclists from making left turns; therefore, this placement should never be considered.
Where parking is permitted but a parking
lane is not provided, the combination lane,
intended for both motor vehicle parking and
bicycle use, should be a minimum of 3.6 m (12
ft) wide. Figure 5-2 illustrates this condition.
However, if it is likely the combination will be
used as an additional motor vehicle lane, it is
preferable to designate separate parking and
bicycle lanes, as shown in Figure 5-2 (1). In both
instances, if parking volume is substantial or
January 1994
turnover is high, an additional 0.3 m to 0.6 m (1

ft or 2 ft) width is desirable for safe bicycle
operation.
Figure 5-2 (3) depicts bicycle lanes along
the outer portions of an urban-type curbed street
where parking is prohibited. Bicyclists do not
generally ride near a curb because of the possibilities of riding through debris, over an uneven
longitudinal joint, or along a steep cross-slope,
or of hitting a pedal on the curb. Bicycle lanes
in this location should have a minimum width of
six feet from the curb face.
Figure 5-2 (4) depicts bicycle lanes on a
highway without curb or gutter. Bicycle lanes
should be located between the motor vehicle
lanes and unpaved shoulders. Bicycle lanes may
have a minimum width of 1.2 m (4 ft), although a
width of 1.5 m (5 ft) or greater is preferable.
Additional width is desirable where substantial
truck traffic is present, where prevailing winds
are a factor, on grades, or where motor vehicle
speeds exceed 56 km/h (35 mph).
Bicycle lane intersection design

Bicycle lanes tend to complicate both bicycle and motor vehicle turning movements at
intersections. Because they encourage bicyclists to keep to the right and motorists to keep
to the left, both operators are somewhat discouraged from merging in advance of turns.
Thus, some bicyclists will begin left turns from
the right side bicycle lane and some motorists
will begin right turns from the lane to the left
of the bicycle lane. Both maneuvers are contrary to established rules of the road and result
in conflicts. Common movements of motorists
and bicyclists are shown in Figure 5-3.
At intersections, bicyclists proceeding
straight through and motorists turning right
must cross paths. Marking and signing configurations which encourage these crossings
through merging in advance of the intersection are generally preferable to those that
force the crossing in the immediate vicinity
of the intersection. To a lesser extent, the
same is true for left-turning bicyclists. However, in this maneuver, the rules of the road
allow bicyclists to make either a vehicular
style left turn (where the bicyclist merges
left to the same lane used for motor vehicle
left turns) or a pedestrian style left turn
Bicycle Lanes 31
(1) Marked parking and bike lanes

Parking stalls or optional 100 mm (4 in) solid white line*
150 mm (6 in) solid white line*
Parking
Bike
lane
2.4 - 3 m (min)
(8 -10 ft)
1.5 m (min)
(5 ft)
Bike
lane
Parking
1.5 m (min)
(5 ft)
2.4 - 3 m (min)
(8 -10 ft)
Motor vehicle lanes
* The optional solid white stripe may be advisable where stalls are unnecessary (because parking is
light) but there is concern that motorists may misconstrue the bike lane to be a traffic lane.
(2) Combined parking and bike use

Vertical curb
150 mm (6 in) solid white line
Combined Parking
and Bike use
Motor vehicle lanes
*3.6 m (min)
(12 ft)
Combined Parking
and Bike use
*3.6 m (min)
(12 ft)
3.9 m (13 ft) is recommended where there is substantial parking or turnover of

parked cars is high (e.g., commercial areas).
(3) Parking prohibited

Bike lane
Bike lane
1.2 m
(min)
(4 ft)
1.2 m
(min)
(4 ft)
1.8 m (min)
(6 ft)
Motor vehicle lanes
1.8 m (min)
(6 ft)
(4) Typical roadway in outlying

areas parking restricted
0.6 m
(min)
(2 ft) Bike lane
1.2 m (min)
(4 ft)
Motor vehicle lanes
1.2 m (min)
(4 ft)
Bike lane
1.2 m (min)
(4 ft)
Figure 5-2: Typical bike lane cross sections on two-lane or multi-lane highways.
Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1991.
32 Bicycle Lanes
January 1994
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
Ped. crossing
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
Ped. crossing
Legend
Bike
Motor vehicle
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
Figure 5-3: Typical bicyclist and motor vehicle movements in an intersection of two multi-lane streets with bicycle lanes.
Source: Arizona Bicycle Facilities Planning & Design Guidelines, 1988
(where the bicyclist proceeds straight through

the intersection, dismounts and then walks
across the intersection on the cross street).
Figure 5-4 illustrates recommended striping patterns for bike lanes crossing a motorist
right-turn-only lane. When confronted with
such intersections, bicyclists will have to
merge with right-turning motorists. Since
bicyclists are typically traveling at speeds
less than motorists, they should signal and
merge where there is a sufficient gap in rightturning traffic, rather than at a predetermined
location. For this reason, it is recommended
that either all delineation be dropped at the
approach of the right-turn lane (or off ramp)
or that a single, dashed bike lane line be
used, extended at a flat angle across the
right-turn lane. A pair of parallel lines (delineating a bike lane crossing) to channel the
bike merge is not recommended, as bicyclists
January 1994
will be encouraged to cross at a predetermined location, rather than where there is a

safe gap in right-turning traffic. Also, some
bicyclists are apt to assume they have the
right-of-way and may not check for rightturning motor vehicle traffic.
A dashed line across the right-turn-only
lane (or off-ramp) is not recommended on
extremely long lanes, or where there are double right-turn-only lanes. For these types of
intersections, all markings should be dropped
to allow the bicyclists judgment to prevail.
Bike lanes crossing on-ramps do not present
the same problems, as bicyclists normally
have a good view of traffic entering the roadway and will adjust their path as necessary to
cross ramp traffic. A Bike Xing sign may
be used to warn motorists of the potential for
bicyclists crossing their path.
Bicycle Lanes 33
Ped. crossing
Ped. crossing
* LANE
LANE
BIKE
1.2 m
min
(4 ft)
LANE
BIKE
Optional dashed
line. Not recommended where a
long right-turnonly lane or
double turn
lane exists.
1.2 m
min
(4 ft)
*If space is
available.
Typical path
of through
bicyclist.
*If space is available.

Otherwise all delineation
should be dropped at
this point.
LANE
BIKE
BIKE
(1) Right-turn-only lane
(2) Parking area becomes

right-turn-only lane
Ped. crossing
Ped. crossing
LANE
Typical path
of through
bicyclist.
BIKE
Typical path
of through
bicyclist.
1.2 m
min
(4 ft)
*If space is
available.
LANE
LANE
BIKE
BIKE
(3) Optional double

Drop bike lane

line where
right turn only
designated.
(4) Right lane becomes

Figure 5-4: Bicycle lane marking options at intersections with right-turn-only lanes.
Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of New Bicycle Facilities, 1991.
34 Bicycle Lanes
January 1994
Where there are numerous left-turning

bicyclists, a separate turning lane, as indicated in Part IX of the MUTCD (see Appendix
4), should be considered. The design of bicycle lanes also should include appropriate
signing at intersections to reduce the number
of conflicts. General guidance for pavement
marking of bicycle lanes also is contained in the
MUTCD.
January 1994
Bicycle Lanes 35
36 Bicycle Lanes
January 1994
6 Bicycle Routes
Introduction
One of the most common questions that new
bicyclists ask is where to ride. A person who has
done very little bicycling as an adult may find
the main roads too challenging but may not
know how to find alternative routes. Similarly,
someone who is new to town may wish to try out
the local scenic backroads but may not be able to
find them, given a standard road map. Solving
these problems are functions of the bicycle
route.
A bicycle route is a suggested way to get
somewhere. In a community, a bicycle route may
consist of a set of signs designating a preferred
way to get from a residential area to a park or to
a shopping area. A network of such routes may
show bicyclists how to get to many destinations
throughout the community. In some cases,
looped systems of scenic routes have been created to provide users with a series of recreational
experiences.
A bicycle route may include stretches of
road with marked bicycle lanes, but in general
the bicycle route concept does not require that
January 1994
the road include any such special bicycle facilities.

In rural areas, signed touring routes may
help long-distance bicyclists ride across the
state on a network of carefully-chosen, quiet
country roads. Often, such bicycle routes are
keyed to a user map.
Overall planning
Planning a bicycle route, or a network of
such routes, begins with development of the
statement of purpose. Choosing the appropriate
purpose requires consideration of an agencys
goals and objectives. For example, within the
scope of its overall transportation plan, a transportation agencys purpose may be to encourage
utilitarian bicycle use along a network of quiet
through streets.
On the other hand, a recreation agency may
see part of its mission as encouraging recreational bicycling by identifying a series of loop
rides. The following are typical uses of the bicycle route concept.
Bicycle Routes 37
Bicycle route networks: In deciding to designate a local network of bicycle routes, the first
step is to develop a list of common destinations. Such destinations might include, for
example, local shopping areas, schools and
universities, sports and recreation complexes,
parks and discontinuous segments of bicycle
paths.
Each destination will have a reasonable
capture area from which it may attract bicyclists. In general, the average bicyclist will
travel between 3 km to 6 km (2 mi to 4 mi) per
trip. As a result, a capture radius of 6 km (4
mi) will be appropriate for most bicycling destinations.
Schools often have specific districts; maps
of these may be obtained from the local school
district offices. Universities and colleges are
often adjacent to student housing neighborhoods which help identify logical bicycle
transportation corridors.
Placing the common destinations and their
likely capture areas on a map will begin to
suggest potential bicycle route corridors.
Since a bicycle route goes both directions, it is
useful to identify two end points for each
route. With the potential corridors chosen, the
next step is to identify alternative routes. This
step is discussed in "Selecting bike routes."
Looped routes: In developing a series of
looped routes, the first step is to identify
scenic areas of interest. Such areas might
include large parks, scenic farm country, areas
around lakes or other bodies of water or pristine woodlands. Place these general locations
on a map of the area.
Within these areas, identify points of interest that a route should pass by. Historic sites,
scenic overlooks, picnic areas and other such
attractions should be located on the map. Once
these sites have been identified, look for
potential loop routes approximately 16 km to
64 km (10 mi to 40 mi) in circumference.
Longer routes with challenging hills will be
popular with more experienced riders while
casual family riders will prefer the shorter,
flatter and less challenging routes.
Touring routes: Long-distance bicycle touring
routes are a specialized application of the
38 Bicycle Routes
bicycle route concept. The North Carolina

Department of Transportation Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation has been
active in the development of such routes over
a period of more than ten years. For this reason, it is important to contact the office and
work closely with its staff on the development
of such routes. A detailed pamphlet on the
subject has been published which should be
consulted.
Selecting bike routes

Overall, the decision to select one road over
another for a bicycle route should be based on
the advisability of encouraging bicycle use on
that particular road. While the roads chosen for
bike routes may not be completely free of problems, they should offer the best balance of safety and convenience of the available alternatives.
In general, the most important considerations
fall into three main categories: (1) geometrics,
(2) traffic conditions, and (3) appropriateness
for the intended purpose.
Geometrics: The most important geometric
considerations include roadway width, pavement quality, intersections, curves and hills.
Chapter 4 of this guide explains how to make
bicycle-related roadway improvements. To
some extent, low motor vehicle traffic volumes
can compensate for less desirable roadway conditions.
Roadway width: On lower speed roadways,
widened curb lanes are beneficial for bicyclists.
On high speed roads, smoothly paved shoulders
are desirable. If a route is generally suitable but
includes a short stretch of narrow road, consideration should be given to use of the Share the
Road warning sign on that segment (see
Appendices for details).
Pavement quality: Smooth roads are far
preferable to roughly paved ones. Perhaps more
than any other geometric consideration, pavement quality will determine how popular a
bicycle route will be.
Intersections: Intersections should be relatively simple and should include few complex features, like multiple turn lanes. Points where
January 1994
bicyclists will be expected to turn left should

be carefully evaluated for their safety. Traffic
lights should be responsive to bicycle traffic.
And the presence of high numbers of stop
signs on the route will discourage bicycle
users.
Curves: While curved stretches of roadway
provide variety, a road with serious sight distance problems and many no-passing zones
may not be an appropriate bicycle route.
Hills: Bicyclists perception of the steepness
of hills will vary with their fitness levels,
cycling skills, trip purposes and expectations.
While most utilitarian bicyclists will choose
the flatest route, fit and skillful recreational
riders may enjoy the challenge of a climb and
the thrill of a descent.
Traffic conditions: Traffic conditions that
affect the desirability of a potential bicycle
route include traffic volume, traffic speed and
percentage of truck and RV traffic.
Traffic volume: In general, the route with
the least motor vehicle traffic will be the one
many bicyclists will prefer. Experienced bicyclists, who have learned to cope with traffic,
will be least concerned with this variable; for
new bicyclists, however, it will be the overriding concern.
Traffic speed: For experienced riders, high
speed traffic offers few concerns. However,
most bicyclists fear high traffic speeds.
Percentage of truck and RV traffic: On
high speed routes, the percentage of truck and
RV traffic is a particular concern due to the
buffeting that bicyclists experience when
passed by heavy vehicles. When combined
with narrow road conditions, a significant percentage of heavy vehicle traffic will make a
route undesirable.
Appropriateness: Factors used to determine
how appropriate a particular road is for a bicycle route include directness, scenery and available services.
January 1994
Directness: For utilitarian riders, directness

is important, and a route that wanders too
much will see little use. For recreational riders, this factor is not as important.
Scenery: For utilitarian riders, scenery is relatively unimportant. For recreational bicyclists, on the other hand, varied and attractive
scenery is one of the most important factors.
Services: Recreational riders, particularly
those riding more than a few miles, will be
particularly interested in services (food, water,
restrooms). A route without such services will
be less desirable than one with occasional
stopping places.
Designating bike routes

When setting up a bicycle route, the placement and spacing of signs should be based on
Part IX of the MUTCD, found in Appendix 4.
For Bike Route signs to be functional, supplemental plates may be placed beneath them
when located along routes leading to high
demand destinations (e.g., To Downtown,
To State College, etc. See Figure 6-1 for typical signing).
Since bicycle route continuity is important,
directional changes should be signed with
appropriate arrow subplaques. Also, signing
should not end at a barrier. Information directing the bicyclist around the barrier should be
provided.
According to the MUTCD (Part 2A-6),
Care should be taken not to install too many
signs. A conservative use of regulatory and
warning signs is recommended as these signs,
if used to excess, tend to lose their effectiveness. On the other hand, a frequent display of
route markers and directional signs to keep the
driver informed of his location and his course
will not lessen their value.
Bike route: The Bike Route sign (see Figure 61) is intended for use where no unique designation of routes is desired. However, when used
alone, this sign conveys very little information.
It should be used in conjunction with supplemental plaques giving destinations and distances. See Part 9B-22 of the MUTCD for
specific information on subplate options.
Bicycle Routes 39
Numbered bike route: The numbered bike route

sign (see Figure 6-2) is used to establish a
unique identification for a state or local bicycle
route. The sign may be combined with directional arrow subplates (M7-1 through M7-7).
One use of this type of sign is for long touring bicycle routes. The number may, for example, correspond to a parallel highway, indicating
the route is a preferred alternate route for bicyclists. This sign also is used in communities
with multiple bicycle routes.
Such signs are often used in conjunction
with user maps, which tell the bicyclist where
each route goes.
D11-1
610 mm x 457 mm
(24 in x 18 in)
50 mm (2 in) max
SALEM 6
D1-1b(L)
610 mm x 152 mm
(24 in x 6 in)
Figure 6-1: Typical signs used for designating bicycle

routes.
Source: MUTCD, Part IX
Mapping
Bicycle users often want to know the extent
of a network of bike routes, just what areas certain routes serve. Yet few bicyclists will follow
a route just to see where it goes. Therefore,
mapping bicycle routes can improve the utility
of the system.
Depending on the budget available, a bike
route map can consist of anything from a small
one-color schematic to a large full-color production. While the former would require relatively
few of an agencys resources, the latter could be
time-consuming and demand significant support
in terms of money and professional staffing. For
more information on bicycle mapping, see
Chapter 8, or contact the NCDOT Office of
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation.
40 Bicycle Routes
13
M1-8
305 mm x 457 mm
(12 in x 18 in)
50 mm (2 in) max
M7-1
Figure 6-2: Signs used to designate numbered bicycle

route.
Source: MUTCD, Part IX
January 1994
7 Bicycle Paths
Constructing bicycle paths is one way to create new recreational opportunities. It also can help bicyclists surmount major barriers or hazards.
Introduction
Bicycle paths are trails generally located
on exclusive rights-of-way and with minimal
cross flow by motor vehicles. Bicycle paths
can serve a variety of purposes. For example,
a connecting trail between two cul-de-sac
streets can provide commuter bicyclists with a
shortcut through a residential neighborhood or
around a barrier.
Located in a park, a bicycle path can provide a wide variety of users with an enjoyable
recreational experience. Bicycle paths can be
located along abandoned railroad rights-ofway, the banks of rivers and other similar linear corridors. Bicycle paths also can provide
bicycle access to areas that are otherwise
served only by limited access highways closed
to bicycles. Appropriate locations can be identified during the planning process.
Bicycle paths should be thought of as nonJanuary 1994
motorized extensions of the highway system

intended for the exclusive or preferential use
of bicycles. It is important for designers to
remember that the bicycle is a vehicle and that
close attention to accepted design criteria is
necessary for the provision of safe facilities.
While there are many similarities between
design criteria for bicycle paths and those for
highways (e.g., in determining horizontal
alignment, sight distance requirements and
signing), some criteria (e.g., horizontal clearance requirements, grades and pavement structure) are dictated by operating characteristics
of bicycles that are substantially different
from those of motor vehicles. The designer
should always be conscious of the similarities
and differences and how these influence the
design of bicycle paths. The following sections provide guidance for designing a safe
and functional bicycle path.
Bicycle Paths 41
Separating paths and highways

When two-way bicycle paths are located
immediately adjacent to a roadway, operational
problems may occur. The following are some
problems with bike paths located immediately
adjacent to roadways.
(1.) Unless paired, they require one direction of bicycle traffic to ride against traffic, contrary to normal rules of the road.
(2.) When the path ends, bicyclists going
against traffic will tend to continue to travel on
the wrong side of the street. Likewise, bicyclists
approaching a bicycle path often travel on the
wrong side of the street to get to the path.
Wrong way riding is a major cause of
bicycle/automobile crashes and should be discouraged at every opportunity.
(3.) At intersections, motorists entering or
crossing the highway often will not notice bicyclists coming from their right, as they are not
expecting contra-flow vehicles. Even bicyclists
coming from the left often go unnoticed, especially when sight distances are poor.
(4.) When constructed in narrow roadway
right-of-way, the shoulder is often sacrificed,
thereby decreasing safety for motorists and
bicyclists using the roadway.
(5.) Many bicyclists will use the highway
instead of the bicycle path because they have
found the highway to be safer, more convenient
or better maintained. Bicyclists using the highway are often subjected to harassment by
motorists who feel that in all cases bicyclists
should be on the path instead.
(6.) Bicyclists using the bicycle path generally are required to stop or yield at all cross
streets and driveways, while bicyclists using the
highway usually have priority over cross traffic
because they have the same right-of-way as
motorists.
(7.) Stopped cross street motor vehicle traffic or vehicles exiting side streets or driveways
may block the path crossing.
(8.) Because of the closeness of motor vehicle traffic to opposing bicycle traffic, barriers
are often necessary to keep motor vehicles out
of bicycle paths and bicyclists out of traffic
lanes. These barriers can be a hazard to bicyclists and motorists, can complicate maintenance of the facility and can cause other
problems as well.
42 Bicycle Paths
For these reasons, wide curb lanes, bicycle

lanes or bicycle routes may be the best way to
accommodate bicycle traffic along highway corridors depending upon traffic conditions.
Multipurpose recreational trails

In some instances, it may be appropriate
for recreational agencies to develop multipurpose recreational trails for hikers, joggers,
equestrians, bicyclists, etc. Many of these trails
will not be paved and will not meet the standards for bicycle paths presented in this guide.
As such, these facilities should not be signed
as bikeways. Rather, they should be designated
as recreational trails (or similar designation),
along with regulatory signing to restrict motor
vehicles, as appropriate. If recreational trails
are to serve primarily bicycle travel, they
should be developed in accordance with standards for bicycle paths.
Width and clearance

Paved width: The paved width and the operating width required for a bicycle path are
primary design considerations. Under most
conditions, the minimum paved width for a
two-directional bicycle path is 3 m (10 ft)
Paths narrower than 3 m (10 ft) are not recommended as they do not permit safe and
frequent passing opportunities where there is
high bicycle use, especially where pedestrian
use is frequent. Also, a narrow path is subject
to pavement edge damage from maintenance
vehicle loading conditions. (A segment of
path less than 3 m (10 ft) wide may be
acceptable or necessary for short distances,
such as when passing between buildings or
utility poles that cannot be moved, or when
crossing bridges that cannot be modified, or
unusual items such as above-ground pipes to
underground storage tanks. These should be
treated on a case-by-case basis and signed in
accordance with the MUTCD.)
In many cases, it may be desirable to
increase the width of a bicycle path to 3.6 m
(12 ft). For example, wider paths may be
needed in cases involving substantial bicycle
volume, probable shared use with joggers and
other pedestrians, use by large maintenance
vehicles, steep grades and locations where
bicyclists are likely to ride two abreast.
January 1994
One-way bicycle paths often will be used as

two-way facilities unless effective measures are
taken to assure one-way operation. For this reason, one-way paths are not recommended.
Horizontal clearances: A minimum 0.6 m (2 ft)
wide graded area should be maintained adjacent to both sides of the pavement (see Figure
7-1). However, 0.9 m (3 ft) or more is desirable
to provide clearance from trees, abutments,
0.9 m
(min)
(3 ft)
100 mm (4 in)
center line
piers, polls, walls, fences, box culverts,

guardrails or other lateral obstructions. A wider
graded area on either side of the bicycle path
can serve as a separate jogging path. If adequate clearance cannot be maintained between
the path and vertical barriers or other features
causing bikeway constriction, a warning sign,
as described in Figure 7-1, should be used in
advance of the hazard with a Type I, II or III
object marker at the location of the hazard
3m
(min)
(10 ft)
0.6 m
(min)
(2 ft)
2% cross slope
Typical bicycle path cross section
Typical bicycle path cross section
Overhead obstruction
2.4 m
(min)
(8 ft)
9C-6 Type III object

marking (see MUTCD
Part IX for details)
Bicycle
overheadand
andadjacent
adjacent
obstructions
Bicyclepath
path with
with overhead
obstructions
(W5-4 Bikeway Narrows sign should be used at least 15 meters (50 feet) in advance of obstruction)
Figure 7-1: Bicycle path cross sections showing widths, clearances, cross slopes and center line marking
Source: Guide to the Development of New Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, 1991 and MUTCD Part IX.
January 1994
Bicycle Paths 43
(see Part 9C-6 of the MUTCD for diagrams).

This treatment should be used only where
unavoidable and is by no means a substitute for
good design.
A wide separation between a bicycle path
and canals, ditches or other significant depressions is essential for safety. A minimum 1.5 m
pe
3:1
Drop is
1.2 m (4 ft)
or more
Safety
rail
Slo
pe
Bike path
:1
e
op
Sl
Drop is
0.3 m (1 ft)
or more
1372 mm
(54 in)
Less than
1.5 m (5 ft)
Safety
rail
1
1:
Bike path
Drop is 1.8 m (6 ft)

or more
Slo
Less than
1.5 m (5 ft)
1372 mm
(54 in)
Bike path
1372 mm
(54 in)
Safety
rail
(5 ft) separation from the edge of the bike path

pavement to the top of the slope is desirable. If
this is not possible, a physical barrier such as
dense shrubbery or a chain link fence should be
provided (see Figure 7-2).
A wide separation between a bicycle path
and any nearby highway is desirable to confirm
Less than
1.5 m (5 ft)
Figure 7-2: Safety rail between bicycle path and adjacent slope.
Source: Arizona Bicycle Facilities Planning & Design Guidelines, AZDOT, 1988.
44 Bicycle Paths
January 1994
to both the bicyclist and the motorist that the

bicycle path functions as an independent facility
for bicycles. When this is not possible and the
distance between the edge of the roadway and
the bicycle path is less than 1.5 m (5 ft) then a
suitable positive barrier should be provided.
Such dividers serve to prevent bicyclists
from making unwanted movements between the
path and the highway shoulder and to reinforce
the concept that the bicycle path is an independent facility. Where used, the divider should be
a minimum of 1.35 m (54 in) high, to prevent
bicyclists from toppling over it. Such a situation
should be treated as a special case and appropriate roadside design and warning measures
taken. Where the path approaches crossing
roadways or driveways, the barrier should be
modified as necessary to enhance visibility
between bicyclists and motorists.
Vertical clearances: The vertical clearance to
obstructions should be a minimum of 2.4 m (8
ft) (see Figure 7-1). However, vertical clearance
may need to be greater to permit passage of
maintenance vehicles and, in undercrossings
and tunnels, a clearance of 3 m (10 ft) is desirable for adequate vertical shy distance.
Design speed
The speed that a bicyclist travels is dependent on several factors, including the type and
condition of the bicycle, the purpose of the trip,
the condition and location of the bicycle path,
the presence of other traffic, the speed and
direction of the wind and the physical condition
of the bicyclist. Bicycle paths should be
designed for a selected speed that is at least as
high as the preferred speed of the faster bicyclists. In general, a minimum design speed of 35
km/h (20 mph) should be used; however, when
the grade exceeds four percent, or where strong
prevailing tailwinds exist, a design speed of 50
km/h (30 mph) is advisable.
Speed bumps or similar surface obstructions, intended to slow down bicyclists in
advance of intersections, should not be used.
They may divert a riders attention from traffic
or catch a pedal causing the cyclist to fall.
On unpaved paths, where bicyclists tend to
ride slower, a lower design speed of 25 km/h
(15 mph) can be used. Similarly, where the
January 1994
grades or the prevailing winds dictate, a higher

design speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) can be used.
Since bicycles have a higher tendency to skid on
unpaved surfaces, horizontal curvature design
should take into account lower coefficients of
friction. With the growing popularity of mountain bicycles, provision of unpaved trails is likely to increase. However, little research has been
done on the phenomenon. Quite possibly,
speeds on some types of unpaved trails will
equal or exceed those on paved trails, especially
where there are significant grades. The engineer
should exercise proper care when dealing with
this new area of design.
Horizontal alignment and superelevation

The minimum radius of curvature negotiable by a bicycle is a function of the superelevation rate of the bicycle path surface, the
coefficient of friction between the bicycle tires
and the bicycle path surface, the speed of the
bicycle and the amount of lean the bicyclist
can handle. Leaning is an important aspect of
bicycle turns; the farther over a bicyclist can
lean in a turn, the sharper a curve he/she can
negotiate, given the limitations of friction.
However, novice bicyclists are less able to
lean over safely and, as a result, will be unable
to negotiate a curve at the same speed as a
more skilled rider. For this reason, a conservative approach to setting curve radius is important.
The minimum design radius of curvature
can be derived from the following formula:
R =
min
V2
____________
15 (e + f)
Where
R = Minimum radius of curvature (ft),
V = Design speed (mph),
e = Rate of superelevation (ft/ft),
f = coefficient of friction.
For most bicycle path applications, the
superelevation rate will vary from a minimum of +2% (the minimum necessary to
encourage adequate drainage) to a maximum
of approximately +5% (beyond which
maneuvering difficulties by slow bicyclists
and adult tricyclists might be expected). The
Bicycle Paths 45
minimum superelevation rate of +2% will be

adequate for most considerations and will simplify construction. Negative superelevations are
to be avoided, since they have the same effect
on bicyclists stability as leaning farther than
intended in
a turn.
The coefficient of friction depends upon
bicycle speed; surface type, roughness and condition; tire type and condition; and whether the
surface is wet or dry. Friction factors used for
design should be selected based upon the point
at which centrifugal force causes the bicyclist
to recognize a feeling of discomfort and
instinctively act to avoid higher speed. Extrapolating from values used in highway design,
design friction factors for paved bicycle paths
can be assumed to vary from 0.30 at 23 km/h
(15 mph) to 0.22 at 50 km/h (30 mph).
Although there are no data available for
unpaved surfaces, it is suggested that friction
factors be reduced by 50 percent to allow a sufficient margin of safety.
Based upon a superelevation rate (e) of
+2%, minimum radii of curvature can be selected from Figure 7-3 below.
(e= +2%)
Design Speed - V
km/h (mph)
30 (20)
40 (25)
50 (30)
60 (35)
65 (40)
Friction
Factor - f
0.27
0.25
0.22
0.19
0.17
Design radius - R
m (ft)
30 (95)
50 (155)
80 (250)
120 (390)
175 (565)
Figure 7-3: Design radii for paved bicycle paths.
Occasionally, designers are tempted to add

curves for the purpose of controlling bicyclist
speed or to provide some variation in the path
alignment. While sometimes successful, this
approach may lead bicyclists to cut corners
when the resulting alignment appears either arbitrary or unsafe at typical approach speeds. Further, if the curve has a significantly lower design
speed than the connecting trail, cyclists may
misjudge the appropriate approach speed and
leave the trail.
When substandard radius curves must be
used on bicycle paths because of right-of-way,
46 Bicycle Paths
topographical or other considerations, standard

curve warning signs and supplemental pavement
markings such as a solid yellow center line
should be installed in accordance with the
MUTCD.
The negative effects of substandard curves
can also be partially offset by widening the pavement through the curves (see Figure 7-4). The
additional pavement may be added on either the
inside or outside of the curve.
Maximum
widening = 1.2 m (4 ft)
Figure 7-4: Curve widening may partially offset the

effects of substandard curves.
Grades
Paved bicycle paths generally attract lessskilled and less-knowledgeable bicyclists, so it is
important to avoid steep grades in their design.
Bicyclists not physically conditioned will be
unable to negotiate long, steep uphill grades and,
as a result, may well dismount to walk up hill. For
a bicycle path to be considered an acceptable
alternative, it should have approximately the same
amount of climbing as the roadways serving the
same destinations. If it includes significantly more
difficult climbs, few bicyclists will use it.
Since novice bicyclists often ride poorlymaintained bicycles and have difficulty in using
their brakes for effective speed control, long
downgrades can cause problems. For this reason,
it is especially important to carefully consider
design speed, curve radius, sight distance
allowances and intersection location on lower sections of hills.
The maximum desirable grade rate recommended for bike paths is five percent. It is
January 1994
desirable that sustained grades be limited to two

percent because of the wide range of riders to be
accommodated.
Grades greater than five percent are undesirable. However, where terrain dictates, grades
over five percent and less than 150 m (500 ft)
long are acceptable when a higher design speed
is used and additional width is provided. Grades
steeper than three percent may not be practical
for bicycle paths with crushed stone surfaces.
Sight distance
To provide bicyclists with an opportunity to
see and react to the unexpected, a bicycle path
should be designed with adequate stopping sight
distances. The distance required to bring a bicycle to a full controlled stop is a function of the
bicyclists perception and brake reaction time,
the initial speed of the bicycle, the coefficient of
friction between the tires and the pavement, and
the braking ability of the bicycle.
Figure 7-5 indicates the minimum stopping
sight distance for various design speeds and
grades based on a total perception and brake
reaction time of 2.5 seconds and a coefficient of

friction of 0.25 to account for the poor wetweather braking characteristics of many bicycles. For two-way bicycle paths, the sight
distance in the descending direction, that is,
where G is negative, will control the design.
Figure 7-6 is used to select the minimum
length of vertical curve necessary to provide
minimum stopping sight distance at various
speeds on crests. The eye height of the bicyclist
is assumed to be 1.35 m (4.5 ft) and the object
height is assumed to be zero to recognize that
hazards to bicycle travel exist at pavement level.
Figure 7-7 indicates the minimum clearance
that should be used to line-of-sight obstructions
for horizontal curves. The desired lateral clearance is obtained by entering Figure 7-7 with the
stopping sight distance from Figure 7-5 and the
proposed horizontal radius of curvature.
Bicyclists frequently ride abreast of each
other on bicycle paths, and on narrow bicycle
paths, bicyclists have a tendency to ride near the
middle of the path. For these reasons, and
because of the serious consequences of a
S=
15 m
(50 ft)
0
V2
30 (f +
G)
3
(2 2 k
0 m
m /h
ph
)
2
(1 4 km
5m /
ph h
)
30 m
(100 ft)
/h
km ph)
0
m
4 5
(2
/h
km h)
48 0 mp
(3
/h
40 kmph)
(25 m
/h
48 kmph)
(30 m
10
32 km/h
(20 mph)
16 km/h
(10 mph)
Grade - %
15
24 km/h
(15 mph)
16 k
(10 mm/h
ph)
20
45 m
(150 ft)
60 m
(200 ft)
75 m
(250 ft)
90 m
(300 ft)
105 m 120 m
(350 ft) (400 ft)
Stopping sight distance - m (ft)

+ 3.67V
Where: S = Stopping sight distance - ft

V = Velocity - mph
f = Coefficient of friction (use 0.25)
G = Grade - rise/run
Descend (-G)
Ascend (+G)
Figure 7-5: Stopping sight distances on bicycle paths.

Source: Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; AASHTO; 1991
January 1994
Bicycle Paths 47
head-on bicycle accident, lateral clearances on

horizontal curves should be calculated based on
the sum of the stopping sight distances for bicyclists traveling in opposite directions around the
curve. Where this is not possible or feasible,
consideration should be given to widening the
path through the curve, installing a yellow center
stripe, installing a curve ahead warning sign, in
accordance with the MUTCD, or some combination of these alternatives.
considerations in bicycle path design. If alternate

locations for a bicycle path are available, the
route that should be selected is one with the
fewest intersections, the most favorable intersection conditions and the one that intersects the
quietest cross streets.
For freeway crossings, a grade separation
structure will be the only possible or practical
treatment. When crossing other highways, providing for turning movements must be considered. In most cases, however, the cost of a grade
separation will be prohibitive.
Intersections
Intersections are among the most important
200 ( h1 + h2)2
L = 2S When S > L
A
AS2
When S < L
L=
100 ( 2h1 + 2h2)2
LMIN = 2V
150 m
(500 ft)
/h
km
40
ph
V=
90 m
(300 ft)
V=
48 k
(25
m/h
mp
h)
(30
mph
120 m
(400 ft)
Minimum vertical curve length (L) - m (ft)
= Stopping sight distance m (ft.)

= Algebraic difference in grade
= Eye height of bicyclist 1.35 m (4.5 ft)
= Height of object 0 m (0 ft)
= Minimum vertical curve length m (ft)
S
A
h1
h2
L
/h
60 m
(200 ft)
30 m
(100 ft)
S
<L
>L
32
(2
km
V=
24
h)
mp
15
/h (
km
m/h (10
V = 16 k
10
15
Algebraic difference in grade (A)
20
mph)
25
Figure 7-6: Sight distances for crest vertical curves on bicycle paths.
Source: Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; AASHTO, 1991
48 Bicycle Paths
January 1994
Sight distance (S) measured along this line
nsid
CL i
S = Sight distance in meters (feet)

R = Radius of C inside lane in meters (feet)
X = Distance from C inside lane in meters (feet)
V = Design speed for S in km/h (mph)
e lane
Angle is expressed in degrees
x
Line of
X = R vers
Obstruction of
Cutbank
S=
Line of sight is 0.6 m (2 ft) above CL inside

lane at point of obstruction
28.65S
R
)]
R
28.65S
[cos -1 (
R-X
R
)]
Formula applies only when S is

equal to or less than length of curve.
R=
46.
5(1
55)
R=
52
.5(
1
75
R=
)
60
(20
R=
0
)
67
.5(
R=
22
5)
R= 75(2
50
82
)
.5
(2
75
)
9m
(30 ft)
R=
37
.5(
12
5)
R=
28.
5(9
5)
R=2
2.5
(75
)
R=1
5(50
)
12 m
(40 ft)
R=7
.5(2
5)
Lateral clearance to obstruction (x) - m (ft)
Object
Eye
Sight
)
00
(3
90
=
0)
R
35
5(
)
10
90
=
(3
R
17
1
R=
)
00
0(5
5)
15
=
(56 )
R
9.5
16 (600
=
R 180
R=
0)
(70
210
)
R=
800
40(
)
R=2 0(900
27
0)
R= 0(100
0
R=3
6m
(20 ft)
3m
(10 ft)
1.5 m
(5 ft)
30 m
(100 ft)
60 m
(200 ft)
90 m
(300 ft)
Sight distance (S) - m (ft)

Figure 7-7: Lateral clearance on horizontal curves on bicycle paths.
Source: Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; AASHTO, 1991
Sign type, size and location should be in

accordance with the MUTCD. Care should be
taken to ensure that bicycle path signs are
located so that motorists are not confused by
them and that highway signs are placed so that
bicyclists are not confused by them.
If a bike path crosses a highway, such a
crossing should occur well away from the
influence of major intersections with other
highways. Controlling vehicle movements at
independent intersections is more easily and
safely accomplished through the application of
standard traffic control devices and normal
rules of the road. Where signals are not warJanuary 1994
ranted, consideration should be given to providing a median refuge area for crossing bicyclists. In this way, they can cross one direction
of travel at a time.
Where physical constraints or high motor
vehicle traffic volumes make crossing at such
independent intersections difficult, the path
may be brought to a nearby signalized intersection and the crossing made at or adjacent to
the pedestrian crossing. Rights-of-way should
be assigned and adequate sight distance
should be provided so as to minimize the
potential for conflict resulting from unconventional turning movements. It may be necessary
Bicycle Paths 49
to prohibit right-turn-on-red for the adjacent

roadway and to provide a separate demandactuated phase for the bicycle path.
Bicycle path intersections and approaches
should be on relatively flat grades. Stopping sight
distances at intersections should be checked and
adequate warning should be given to permit bicyclists to stop before reaching the intersection,
especially on downgrades.
Curb-cuts at intersections should be the same
width as the bicycle paths. Curb-cuts and ramps
should provide a smooth transition between the
bicycle paths along the roadway.
Restriction of motor vehicle traffic

Bicycle paths often need some form of
physical barrier at highway intersections to
prevent unauthorized motor vehicles from
using the facilities. At the same time, the barrier should be designed to minimize the danger it poses for bicyclists and to allow the
passage of emergency or maintenance vehicles. For this reason, proper materials, adequate design, good visibility and appropriate
location are critical. While it is possible to
restrict automobile and truck access, eliminating motorcycle access is very difficult. Barriers that can keep motorcycles out may make
bicycle access difficult and potentially dangerous as well. At entrances to private driveways,
motor vehicle barriers are less important than
they are at highways. However, if a particular
driveway is found to be a significant entry

point for motorists, barriers should be considered there as well.
Lockable, removable posts at path
entrances will allow entry of authorized vehicles. Posts should be at least 0.9 m (3 ft) high,
permanently reflectorized for nighttime visibility and painted a bright color for improved
daytime visibility. Their surface should be
smooth and free of protrusions to prevent
snagging a bicyclists clothing or equipment.
To allow appropriate clearances, a 1.5 m (5
ft) spacing between posts should be used (see
Figure 7-8). Wider spacing can allow entry to
motor vehicles, while narrower spacing might
prevent entry by adult tricycles and bicycles
with trailers or present a hazard for less proficient bicyclists. On a 3 m (10 ft) path, the
paving should be flared slightly and one post
located near either edge and one post in the
middle. A wider path will require more posts,
again spaced at 1.5 m (5ft).
The barrier should be installed in a highly
visible location with adequate sight distance
from either direction. Lighting may be considered if the location has inadequate street lighting to illuminate the barrier. Marking an
envelope around the barrier is recommended
(see Figure 7-8). If sight distance is limited,
special advance warning signs or painted
pavement markings should be provided. It is
best to locate the barrier 9 m (30 ft) from the
1.5 m (min)
(5 ft)
100 mm (4 in) yellow marking
3m
(10 ft)
0.9 m (min)
(3 ft)
Post
1.5 m (min)
(5 ft)
0.3 m 0.3 m
(1 ft) (1 ft)
Cross section
Marking plan
Figure 7-8: Reflectorized post barrier used to keep motor vehicles off bicycle paths and marking plan.
Source: California Highway Design Manual; CalTrans; 1987
50 Bicycle Paths
January 1994
intersection to allow bicyclists to pay full

attention to traffic once they reach the crossing and to remove the barrier from the
motorists clear recovery zone.
An alternative method of restricting entry
of motor vehicles is to split the entry way for
the last 3 m to 9 m (10 ft or 30 ft) before the
intersection into two 1.5 m (5 ft) sections that
enter the intersection approximately 1.5 m (5 ft)
apart (see Figure 7-9). The sections may be separated and surrounded by low landscaping. Emergency vehicles can still enter if necessary by
straddling the landscaping. The higher maintenance costs associated with landscaping should
be acknowledged, however, before this alterna-
Bicycle path
Stop
sign
1.5 m
(5 ft)
STOP
3.6 m (12 ft)

minimum
Approx.
1.5 m
(5 ft)
Note: See MUTCD

Part IX Figures 9-2
and 9-6 for more
advice on signing and
marking bicycle
path/roadway
intersections.
3 m to 9 m
(10 ft to 30 ft)
3 m (10 ft)
1.5 m
(5 ft)
Stop bar approx. 1.2 m

(4 ft) from intersection
STOP
Stop
sign
Figure 7-9: Alternative approach to bike path/roadway

Source: Bicycle Facility Design; OHDOT; 1988
intersection.
January 1994
tive method is selected.

Whether the post or split entry method is
used, pavement markings and signing may be
used to warn bicyclists and direct them in the
appropriate direction.
Bike path signing and marking

Adequate signing and marking are essential
on bicycle paths, especially to alert bicyclists to
potential hazards and to convey regulatory messages to both bicyclists and motorists at highway
intersections. In addition, guide signing to indicate directions, destinations, distances, route
numbers and names of crossing streets, should
be used in the same manner as they are used on
highways. In general, uniform application of
traffic control devices will tend to encourage
proper bicyclist behavior. When deciding
whether to install a sign, the designer should ask
whether he or she would install one on a roadway with a similar situation. Further, using standard rather than unique signs should reduce sign
theft.
General guidance on signing and marking is
provided in the MUTCD. Part IX of the MUTCD
(reproduced in Appendix 4), refers specifically to
traffic controls for bicycle facilities.
In order to keep signs from becoming hazards
themselves, they should be offset horizontally
from the edge of the bicycle path as shown in
Figure 7-1.
A dashed 100 mm to 150 mm (4 in to 6 in)
wide yellow center line should be used to separate opposite directions of travel. A solid double yellow center line should be used on
curves, especially those with restricted sight
distance. White edge lines, 100 mm to 150 mm
(4" to 6"), also can be beneficial where significant night-time bicycle traffic is expected (e.g.,
near a university campus).
If a pedestrian area is to be designated, it
should be separated from the bicycle path by at
least a 100 mm to 150 mm (4 in to 6 in) solid
white line (Figure 7-10). Regulatory signs (see
sign R9-7 on page 80) also should be used.
However, if space allows, a physical separation
like a bicycle-safe barrier or a 0.9 m (3 ft)
grassy berm is preferred (Figure 7-10).
In areas where pavement markings are
found to be cost effective, consideration should
be given to using them in conjunction
Bicycle Paths 51
0.9 m
(3 ft)
1.5 m
(5 ft)
Yellow
center line
3m
(10 ft)
Bicycle Path
Walkway
Bicycle path separated from walkway by grassy berm
1.5 m
(5 ft)
Walkway
White
edge line
3m
(10 ft)
Yellow
center line
Bicycle Path
Bicycle path separated from walkway by edge line

Figure 7-10: Two approaches to separating a bicycle path from a walkway.
with warning or regulatory signs, especially at

critical locations. Otherwise, theft of warning
or regulatory signs may result in bicyclists not
being aware of serious hazards or their legal
duties in a particular situation. Care should be
exercised in the choice of pavement marking
materials. Thermoplastic and preformed tape,
for example, are slippery when wet and should
be avoided in favor of more skid-resistant materials like traffic paint.
Whenever construction work is conducted
on bicycle paths, it is important to sign, mark
and, if necessary, barricade the construction
zone with care as shown in the MUTCD, Part
VI. If a detour is provided, it should be signed
appropriately.
Pavement structure
Designing and selecting pavement sections
for bicycle paths is in many ways similar to
designing and selecting highway pavement
sections. A soils investigation should be conducted to determine the load carrying capabilities of the native soil and the need for any
special provisions. The investigation need not
be elaborate, but should be done by, or under
the supervision of, a qualified engineer.
In addition, several basic principles should
be followed to recognize some basic differ52 Bicycle Paths
ences between the operating characteristics of

bicycles and those of motor vehicles. While
loads on bicycle paths will be substantially less
than highway loads, paths should be designed
to sustain without damage wheel loads of
occasional emergency, patrol, maintenance and
other motor vehicles that are expected to use or
cross the path.
Special consideration should be given to
the location of motor vehicle wheel loads on
the path. When motor vehicles are driven on
bicycle paths, their wheels will usually be at or
very near the edges of the path. Since this can
cause edge damage that, in turn, will result in
the lowering of the effective operating width of
the path, adequate edge support should be provided. Edge support can be either in the form
of stabilized shoulders or in constructing additional pavement width. Constructing a typical
pavement width of twelve feet, where right-ofway and other conditions permit, eliminates
the edge raveling problem and offers two additional advantages over shoulder construction.
First, it allows additional maneuvering space
for bicyclists, and second, the additional construction cost can be less than for constructing
shoulders because the separate construction
operation is eliminated.
It is important to construct and maintain a
January 1994
75 - 100 mm
(3 - 4 in)
38 - 50 mm
(1.5 - 2 in)
75 - 100 mm
(3 - 6 in)
smooth riding surface on bicycle paths. Bicycle path pavements should be machine laid.
Soil sterilants should be used where necessary
to prevent vegetation from erupting through
the pavement. And, on portland cement concrete pavements, transverse joints, necessary to
control cracking, should be saw cut to provide
a smooth ride. Skid resistance qualities, however, should not be sacrificed for the sake of
smoothness. Broom finish or burlap drag concrete surfaces are preferred over trowel finishes. In areas where climates are extreme, the
effects of freeze-thaw cycles should be anticipated. Geotextiles and other similar materials
should be considered where subsurface conditions warrant.
At unpaved highway or driveway crossings
of bicycle paths, the highway or driveway
should be paved as far as practible on either
side of the crossing to reduce the amount of
gravel scattered along the path by motor vehicles.
The pavement structure at the crossing
Asphaltic
concrete
(full depth)
Compacted
subgrade
Asphaltic
concrete
surface
Stabilized
aggregate
base
100 mm
(4 in)
Compacted
subgrade
Portland
cement
Compacted
subgrade
Figure 7-11: Typical pavement structural sections for

bicycle paths.
should be adequate to sustain the expected

loading at that location.
Good quality pavement structures can be
constructed of asphaltic or portland cement
concrete. Because of wide variations in soils,
loads, materials and construction practices, it
is not practical to present specific or recommended typical structural sections. Local standards for construction, preparation of sub-base
and soil sterilization for a low-volume road
should, in most cases, produce an adequate
cross section for a bicycle path. However, Figure 7-11 shows some typical pavement structural sections.
Attention to the local governing conditions
and to the principles outlined above is needed.
Experience in highway pavement design,
together with sound engineering judgment, can
assist in the selection and design of a proper
bicycle path pavement structure.
Hard, all-weather pavement surfaces are
usually preferred over those of crushed aggregate, sand, clay or stabilized earth since these
materials provide a much lower level of service. However, with the growth in popularity
of mountain bikes, non-paved surfaces are
being considered more frequently. With their
wider lower-pressure tires, mountain bikes can
easily handle surfaces that would prove unstable for thin-tired bikes. Further, an unpaved
path will have a lower design speed, reducing
the potential for conflicts between high-speed
bicycles and low-speed pedestrians. The best
surfaces for unpaved paths are crushed stone,
stabilized earth or limestone screenings,
depending upon local availability.
Utility covers and drainage grates should
be flush with the pavement surface, and
drainage grates should be designed to allow the
crossing of bicycles from all angles. See Figure 4 -1 on page 17 in the Roadway Improvements chapter for more details on grate design.
Railroad crossings should be smooth and
should occur as close to 90 degrees to direction
of travel as possible in order to minimize the
danger of falls (Figure 7-12). Special rubberized crossings and flangeway fillers, as
described in Figures 4 - 3 and 4 - 4 on pages 18
and 19, should be considered.
January 1994
Bicycle Paths 53
vertical clearance of 3 m (10 ft) is desirable for

adequate vertical shy distance.
90
cks
RR Tra
45 minimum angle.
If less, a stop sign
should be placed.
Bike Path
Figure 7-12: Bicycle path railroad crossing.

Bike path structures

When a bicycle path meets a barrier such
as a railroad, a river or an interstate highway
some sort of grade-separated crossing may be
necessary to provide continuity. This crossing
may take the form of a bridge, an underpass or a
facility on a highway bridge. On new bicycle
structures, the minimum clear width should be
the same as the approach paved bicycle path;
and the desirable clear width should include the
minimum 0.6 m (2 ft) wide clear areas on either
side. Carrying the clear areas across the structures has two advantages: first, it provides a
minimum horizontal shy distance from the railing or barrier, and second, it provides needed
maneuvering space to avoid conflicts with
pedestrians and other bicyclists who are stopped
on the bridge.
Access by emergency, patrol and maintenance vehicles should be considered in establishing the design clearances of structures on
bicycle paths. Similarly, vertical clearance also
may be dictated by occasional motor vehicles
using the path. However, where practical, a
54 Bicycle Paths
Independent bicycle bridges: Railings, fences or

barriers on both sides of a bicycle path bridge
should be a minimum of 1372 mm (54 in) high
(Figure 7-13). Smooth 250 mm (10 in) tall rub
rails may be attached to the barriers at a handlebar
height of 1.1 m (3.5 ft). Ends of railings should be
offset away from the adjoining path to minimize
the danger of cyclists running into them (Figure
7-14). If this is not possible, Type II or Type III
object markers, as described in the MUTCD Part
IX, should be used.
Bridges designed for bicycle and/or pedestrian traffic shall be designed for a live load of 4070
Pa (85 psf). On concrete decks, care should be
taken to ensure that bicycle-safe expansion joints
are used. Broom finish or burlap drag surfaces are
preferred over trowel finishes.
If planking is used for decking, the joints
between boards should be smooth and at least 45
degrees to the direction of travel to prevent their
diverting bicycle wheels. In addition, boards
should be placed in such a way as to curl down
rather than up.
Bridges: If it is impossible to provide an independent bicycle bridge, one option is to retrofit
a bicycle path onto one side of an existing
highway bridge.
This should be done where:
The bridge facility will connect to a bicycle
path at both ends;
Sufficient width exists on one side of the
bridge or can be obtained by either widening or restriping lanes;
Provisions are made to physically separate
bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic;
and
Any crossing difficulties with roadway
turn ramps at either end can be overcome.
Mounting a bicycle facility on an existing

bridge requires that the bridge have sufficient
strength to hold such a structure. An engineering study must be done to determine the safety
of the proposed addition.
Merging a bicycle path onto the roadway at
either end of the bridge, using either bicycle
lanes or wide curb lanes, generally is not recJanuary 1994
W
WL
1372 mm (min)
(54 in)
W
W
W
If screening or solid face is present, number of

rails may be reduced; wind loads must be added
if solid face is used.
Notes:
WL
W
W
1372 mm (min)
(54 in)
W
W
1372 mm (min)
(54 in)
Note:
W
WL
W
W
1. Loadings on left are applied to rails.

2. Loads on right are applied to posts.
3. The shapes of rail members are illustrative
only. Any material or combination of materials
listed in Article 2.7 (Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges) may be used in any con-
Bikeway surface
Figure 7-13: Alternative railing designs for independent bicycle bridges.

Source: Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges; AASHTO, 1989
ommended because of the likelihood that bicyclists will stay on that side of the bridge regardless of their direction of travel.
Sidewalks: Using existing sidewalks as twoway facilities is generally inadvisable. Because
of the large number of variables involved in
Railing
Bikeway surface
1372 mm
(54 in)
min
3 m (10 ft) min.

4.2 m (14 ft) pref.
Bridge cross section
45
. Direction of travel
min
Bridge
4.2 m (14 ft)
Railing
(8 ft)
2.4 m n
mi
Path
3 m (10 ft)
Shoulders
0.6 m (2 ft)
15
0.6 m
(2 ft)
min
*If planking used, it must be laid at least 45 to

direction of travel.
Figure 7-14: Bridge widths and clearances.
January 1994
Underpasses and tunnels: In some cases, an

underpass will be the best way to carry a bicycle path under a highway. Figure 7-15 shows a
typical underpass cross section for bicycle
paths. Lighting, grades, approaching curve
design, visibility and maintenance should be
carefully considered.
Drainage
Planking*
Plan of bridge end
retrofitting bicycle facilities onto existing

bridges, compromises in desirable design criteria are often inevitable. Therefore, the width to
be provided is best determined by the designer,
on a case-by-case basis, after thoroughly considering all the variables.
The recommended minimum pavement cross

slope of two percent adequately provides for
drainage. Sloping in one direction instead of
crowning is preferred and usually simplifies the
drainage and surface construction. On curves,
the cross slope should be towards the inside of
the curve.
A smooth surface is essential to prevent water
ponding and ice formation. Where a bicycle path
is constructed on the side of a hill, a ditch of suitable dimensions should be placed on the uphill
side to intercept the hillside drainage. Ditches and
drainage structures should be designed so that
they do not create hazards for bicyclists and
should be offset from the edge of the path as
described in the topic, Width and Clearance, on
page 42. If drainage structures cannot be offset
sufficiently, object markers should be used to
warn bicyclists of their presence.
Bicycle Paths 55
Where necessary, catch basins with drains

should be provided to carry the intercepted
water under the path. Drainage grates and manhole covers should be located outside of the
travel path of bicyclists. To assist in draining
the area adjacent to the bicycle path, the design
should include considerations for preserving
the natural ground cover. Seeding, mulching,
Recessed vandalresistant light fixtures
1.2 m (4 ft)
from CL
1.5 m (min)
(5 ft)
2.4 - 3 m (8 - 10 ft)
vertical clearance
Centerline
1.8 m min
(6 ft)
Light well in
street median
1.5 m (min)
(5 ft)
Figure 7-15: Bicycle path underpass.

and sodding of adjacent slopes, swales and

other erodible areas should be included in the
design plans.
Lighting
Fixed-source lighting reduces conflicts
along paths and at intersections. In addition,
lighting allows the bicyclists to see the bicycle
path direction, surface conditions and obstacles.
Lighting for bicycle paths should be provided
where considerable riding is expected at night,
such as bicycle paths serving college students or
commuters, where there is insufficient available
light from the surrounding area, and at highway
intersections, especially if there are post barriers
that the cyclist must avoid. While the North
Carolina motor vehicle laws require bicycles to
have headlights after dark, the low level of
56 Bicycle Paths
lighting required by law wont necessarily light

up a bicyclists path sufficiently to see and avoid
obstacles.
Each lighting situation is unique and must
be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, however,
average maintained horizontal illumination levels of 5 lux (0.5 foot candles) to 22 lux (2 foot
candles) should be considered. Where special
security problems exist, higher illumination levels may be considered. Light poles should be
3.6 m to 4.5 m (12 ft to 15 ft) high and must
meet recommended horizontal clearances.
Luminaires and poles should be at a scale
appropriate for a pedestrian or bicycle path.
Underpasses and tunnels (except where
there is a completely open view into the tunnel
from the surrounding area) may need additional
lighting, even in the day time, for both visibility
and security. On bright, sunny days, bicyclists
entering a dark underpass may be momentarily
blinded and unable to see potential hazards; for
this reason, they may need lighting to navigate
safely.
Because lighting is important for cyclists
safety and security, vandal-resistant lighting fixtures are recommended in all locations.
Multi-use paths
Pedestrians: While multi-use paths may be
undesirable due to the mixing of bicycles and
pedestrians, in reality, most bicycle paths are
multi-use to some extent. The degree of incompatibility between bicyclists and pedestrians is
a function of density, speed, congestion and the
presence of crossing and turning opportunities.
The design of a multi-use trail should reflect
consideration of each of these factors. Further,
the more pedestrian traffic a trail receives, the
less suitable it will be for bicycle traffic. In
most situations, a multi-use trail with significant pedestrian traffic should not be designated
as a bicycle trail.
Linear trails through greenbelts may have
lower pedestrian densitiesespecially away
from entry points and significant attractors
(e.g., picnic areas and playgrounds)and may
suffice for multi-use if sufficient width is provided and adequate sight distances and clearances are maintained.
If higher pedestrian volumes are expected
on a multi-use trail, as is the case in large urban
January 1994
areas, consideration should be given to providing a separate pedestrian trail adjacent to, but
separated from, the bicycle trail. In some cases,
a simple stripe between the pedestrian and
bicycle areas may suffice. In others, providing a
physical barrier and/or unpaved shoulder
between may be necessary. (See Figure 7-10
for details.)
In areas with considerable congestion and
diffuse patterns of pedestrian cross-traffic, a
more appropriate design may be necessary.
College campus quads, for example, are very
difficult situations in which to incorporate a
bicycle facility. With pedestrians crossing in
many places and at many angles, it is impossible to provide sufficient protection for the bicycle facility. In such situations, it may be more
appropriate to direct bicycle traffic around the
congested area and discourage fast bicycling
within.
Mopeds: It also is undesirable to mix mopeds
and bicycles on the same facility. Where it is
necessary to do so, the facility should be
designed to account for the higher operating
speeds of mopeds, the additional maneuvering
requirements of mopeds, and the increased frequency of passing maneuvers. Many of the
design guidelines prescribed in this chapter
(e.g., widths, design speeds, horizontal alignments, grades, etc.) would be inadequate for
facilities intended for moped use.
Horses: Using a single path for bicycles and
horses creates an unsatisfactory and potentially
dangerous mix. Horses startle easily and may
kick out suddenly if they perceive bicyclists as
a danger. Two parallel paths within the same
corridor, however, have been found to work
well if there is a visual barrier and adequate
separation between the two.
January 1994
Bicycle Paths 57
58 Bicycle Paths
January 1994
8 Supplemental Facilities
The need for bicycle parking varies with location. At popular destinations, like universities and schools, a successful
bicycle parking program may require a substantial investment and a significant planning effort.
Bicycle Parking
Providing bicycle parking facilities is an
essential element in an overall effort to promote
bicycling. People are discouraged from bicycling unless adequate parking is available.
Bicycle parking facilities should be provided at
both the trip origin and the trip destination and
should offer protection from theft and damage.
If bicycle parking is not properly designed and
located, bicyclists will use trees, railings and
other appurtenances. This practice can cause
damage and create a hazard for pedestrians.
Choosing bicycle parking devices: The following tips should be kept in mind when choosing
bicycle parking devices. An overall parking
program may include several different types of
devices.
(1.) Decide on the level of security
needed. Generally, short-term customer parking in front of retail stores need not be as
secure as long-term employee parking at work
places. Short-term parking needs can be satisJanuary 1994
fied by racks that simply allow use of high

security, U-shaped locks. Long-term parking
needs, on the other hand, may be satisfied by
bicycle lockers, locked enclosures or locked
rooms within the building.
(2.) Look at how the device works.
Racks should not look complicated or have
many moving parts. They also should work
with all types of locks. If, in holding the bike,
they come into excessive contact with the frame
or delicate mechanisms, cyclists may not use
the racks, fearing damage to their bicycles.
Devices also should hold the bike in a way that
makes it less likely to fall over; bent rims are
common with racks that only support one
wheel.
(3.) Decide on the number of spaces
needed. As a rough estimate, determine current levels of bike usage. However, adequate
bike parking can attract additional users, so,
increasing that estimate somewhat may be justified. Consider doing an informal survey of
potential users.
Supplemental Facilities 59
(5.) Consider the budget. Bicycle parking

can cost from $35 per bike space to over $300
per space. The need to save money must be
weighed against the possibility that inadequate
parking devices may not be used by bicyclists or
may be destroyed by vandals.
(6.) Contact other users. Once the list of
potential parking devices has been narrowed,
ask for names of people who already have each
type. Contact these people and ask about vandalism problems, user reactions, ease of installation, weather resistance, maintenance
requirements and site constraints. Ask how long
they have used the devices and how many have
been installed.
A bicycle rack in use on a downtown sidewalk.
Tough galvanized coating, a vandal-resistent design,
and ease of use with high security locks make this
design popular.
(4.) Determine whether vandalism is a

factor. Some sites are prone to vandalism. In
these cases, the best bicycle parking is that
which attracts the least amount of attention from
vandals, can be mounted securely and is very
sturdy.
Locating bicycle parking: Deciding just where

to put bicycle parking can be difficult. The right
location can mean the difference between a popular rack and an unpopular one. The following
points should be kept in mind when locating
bicycle parking facilities.
(1.) Distinguish between long-term and
short-term parking needs. Long-term parking is needed at locations such as schools and
universities, employment centers, transit stations and multi-family dwellings. In locating
long-term parking, convenience is slightly less
important than security.
January 1994
(2.) Locate bike parking near popular

destinations, at the entrance bicyclists use.
Short-term parking is needed at locations such as
shopping centers, libraries, recreation areas and
post offices. Facilities should be conveniently
located, near building entrances. The farther
away from users destinations the parking is
located, the less likely it will be used. As is true
with motorists, it is very difficult to force
cyclists to park in an inconvenient place.
(3.) Bike parking located next to car
parking or traffic lanes will need protection. If insufficient clearance is allowed, unprotected bike racks, as well as the bikes parked in
them, can be damaged by car bumpers and fenders.
(4.) Bicycle parking should be kept out
of major pedestrian paths. People often walk
without watching where they are going. Some
racks, when empty, can be easy to ignore but
dangerous to shins. If parking must be placed
where people walk, it should be very noticeable,
large and high enough to see easily, and it should
be free of dangerous projections.
(5.) Parking should be located within
view of windows, security offices or high
volumes of pedestrian traffic. Such locations
tend to be self-policing, reducing the temptation
for thieves and relieving the fears of bike users.
(6.) Protection from the weather is useful, particularly for long-term commuter
or short-term utilitarian parking. Placing
the parking under a roof overhang, but not under
the drip line, can provide shelter from the weather at little cost. Bicyclists will appreciate the protection, both for their bikes and for themselves
when locking up.
(7.) Potential expansion and project
phasing are important. It may be best to try a
few units at first and then, when demand warrants, expand. Parking location should allow for
expansion in modular increments.
Other facilities and services

In addition to bicycle parking, several other
improvements can complement roadway
improvements and bicycle paths. For example,
on long, uninterrupted bicycle paths, turnouts,
picnic areas with tables and benches, or rest
room facilities may be provided. Other improvements include the following:
January 1994
Bicycle-transit interface: Provisions also

should be considered for interfacing bicycle
travel with public transit. In some communities,
for example, buses on certain routes have bicycle racks mounted on either front or rear. In
other communities, the transit company allows
users to carry their bicycles on the bus during
off-peak hours.
In several large metropolitan areas, bicyclists with special permits may take their bicycles on transit cars during certain hours.
Developing and enhancing the connection
between transit and bicycle use can increase the
effectiveness of both modes in serving suburban
areas.
Bicycle user maps: Printing and distributing
bicycle maps is a popular high-benefit/relatively
low-cost project. Several approaches are used,
each with a different purpose. Those approaches
and purposes are described briefly in the following sections.
Bicycle facility locations: In some communities, for example, agencies have published bicycle route maps to show designated bike lanes,
routes and paths. These often show little else
and are strictly guides to the facilities provided
by the agency.
Bicycling suitability maps: In other communities, agencies have developed suitability
maps which identify the relative difficulty of
different segments of the road system. Such
maps can help bicyclists avoid narrow, highspeed or high-volume roads, barriers and other
problems. In addition, maps can provide information on traffic law, safety, mass transit and
locations of parking facilities.
Hybrid maps: Because some agencies desire
to show both their designated bicycle facilities
and suitability features of the overall roadway
network, they have developed hybrid maps.
These combine the features of the previous two
types.
Individual route maps: In some cases, agencies have developed one or more maps that
show individual bicycle routes. For local loop
routes, these can often be inexpensively printed
Supplemental Facilities 61
A bicyclist loading his bicycle onto a transit bus in Seattle, Washington. Such services are especially popular among
utilitarian riders in many communities.
and quickly produced and updated. On the other

hand, agencies like the North Carolina Department of Transportation Office of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation have produced more
elaborate long distance route map sets.
January 1994
9 Operation And Maintenance

General
A wide variety of local, state and national
agencies have built bicycle facilities. These
facilities may be trails located on independent
rights-of-way or they may be on-road bicycle
lanes, signed bicycle routes, wide shared traffic
lanes or well-marked shoulder areas.
The agencies responsible for the control,
maintenance and policing of bicycle facilities
should be identified prior to construction. The
costs involved with the operation and maintenance should be considered and budgeted for
when planning a facility.
In general, the methods used for roadway
repair and maintenance should be observed.
Neglected maintenance will render bicycle
facilities unridable, and the facilities will
become a liability to the agency responsible. In
addition, future repaving must be planned as
the facilities age. Bicyclists should be encouraged to report bicycle paths and roadways
needing maintenance. A central contact person
with authority to authorize maintenance work
should be designated to receive such reports.
Planning and budgeting: The growth of bicycle facility mileage should be carefully watched
to assure that funding is commensurate with
maintenance and operational responsibilities.
While the special maintenance needs of onroad facilities are a relatively small part of the
overall road maintenance budget, this is not the
case with bicycle paths.
Budgets for path-side maintenance should
include materials for planting, spraying,
mulching, watering, fertilizing, pruning, selective clearing, etc.; equipment for mowing, irrigating, spraying, cultivating, hauling, etc; and
skilled personnel. Costs can vary considerably
from year to year depending upon increases in
the number of miles of new bicycle paths and
changes in maintenance practices and standards.
Improvements in maintenance effectiveness
and lower costs which can be achieved by the
application of new methods should merit study.
Budgets should also include adequate supplies
and services for rest areas.
Maintenance requirements and budgets for

newly landscaped areas should be developed
with the cooperation of the landscape designer,
horticulturist or agronomist.
Standards of care: Standards of care for bicycle paths may ultimately be determined by the
courts. As the views of the court may change
with circumstances, maintenance managers
should be aware of the latest court rulings. It
can be expected that the standard of care may
be high because of the vulnerability of bicyclists to accidents.
On-road facilities
Bikeways and roadways with bicycle traffic
are often susceptible to having debris, such as
glass or sand, accumulate in the area near the
right edge where most bicyclists ride. Therefore, regular sweeping is necessary. A smooth
surface, free of potholes and debris, should be
provided. The pavement edges should be uniform. Highways with bicycle traffic may require
a more frequent and a higher level of maintenance than other highways.
Special bicycle signs and markings should
be routinely inspected and kept in good condition. Markings should be kept prominent.
The routine maintenance of roadways provides an excellent opportunity to improve the
bicycle travel on those roads. Several bicycle
facilities described in this guide can be implemented during routine maintenance activities.
When lane markings for four- or six-lane streets
are restriped, consideration can be given to
adjusting the lane widths and providing a wide
curb lane for bicycles (see the section entitled
Wide Outside Lanes on page 26). The addition
of edge lines can better delineate a shoulder,
especially at night. When shoulders are resurfaced, a smooth surface suitable for bicycle riding should be considered.
Bicycle paths
For bicycle paths built in conformance with
design standards, the agency responsible for
maintenance should seek to maintain those standards. If standards are not prescribed,
A commitment to maintenance for bicyclists involves paying particular attention to debris and road surface
conditions at the right edge of the roadway.
they should consider improvements that are

within their capability and which will improve
the facilitys safety and operation. Trail widening, curve improvements, drainage improvements, addition of dividers, or curbs should be
considered as appropriate maintenance functions on paths constructed without design standards.
Use of paths will be considerably influenced by weather. Good weather will cause
high use rates. Bad weather will cause many
recreational paths to be little used or even
closed. Paths used by commuters may require
special consideration. Puddles, ice and snow
may become maintenance problems if commuter paths will operate year round.
Inspection: The condition of bicycle paths is
more directly associated with public recreation
and enjoyment than the condition of roadways.
Maintenance requirements should be evaluated
from the standpoint of the user.
Signs and traffic markings: Signs, especially

warning or regulatory signs, and markings
should be routinely inspected and kept in good
condition. Center line marking on the path
should be kept prominent.
Part IX of the MUTCD, reproduced in
Appendix 4, prescribes the proper signs and
markings for bicycle paths.
Visibility:
Illumination: Need for proper lighting of
bicycle paths will usually vary according to the
amount of vehicle traffic and the particular hazards an area presents. Roadway intersections
are prime candidates for lighting improvements
and, once installed, the lights should be maintained not only to ensure reliable operation, but
also provide the desired luminance.
Sight distance and clearance: Sight distances on parallel roadways and paths should not
be impaired leading up to crossings and curves.
January 1994
Trees, shrubs and tall grass should be regularly

inspected and either removed or trimmed if
they can interfere. Sight distance requirements
will vary with potential bicycle speeds. Adequate clearances on both sides and overhead
should be checked regularly.
Tree branches should be trimmed to allow
enough room for seasonal growth without
encroaching onto the trail. Seeded and sodded
areas in the vicinity of bicycle paths should
have a regular schedule of mowing.
Surface repair: Patching and grading of paths
should be much less demanding than similar
roadway operations. Hand operated equipment
should be adequate to make repairs in most
cases. It is more important, however, that finished patches be flush with the surface of the
path. Skid resistance of the surface should be
the same as the adjoining paths surface.
Presence of ruts should indicate an improperly designed or constructed trail, or that use
has not been limited to bicycles. Ruts should be
removed by whatever measures are appropriate
to give a satisfactory result and avoid recurrence. Attention should be given to maintaining
the full paved width and not allowing the edges
to ravel.
Drainage: Paths constructed across irregular or
hilly land usually will encounter drainage problems. Seasonal washouts, silt or gravel washes
across a path, or sinking should be watched for
and appropriate measures taken. Installation of
culverts or building small bridges could be considered a maintenance function to achieve an
immediate result and avoid the expense of contracting.
Drainage grates should not have parallel
openings that could catch narrow bicycle tires.
Maintenance personnel should be especially
instructed to assure that grates are positioned so
that openings are at angles to the trails direction.
Cleaning:
Sweeping and cleaning: The responsibility
to maintain bicycle paths could present problems for cleanliness not ordinarily associated
with motor vehicle travel. The tires of a bicycle
can be easily damaged by broken glass and
January 1994
other sharp objects. Bicycle wheels slip easily

on leaves or ice. Small solid objects such as
loose gravel or sticks on an asphalt surface can
cause a serious fall. There also should be concern when mechanically sweeping roadways
that material is not thrown onto a bicycle path.
Path-side materials such as bark or gravel may
ravel and necessitate frequent sweeping.
Trash pick-up: Trash receptacles should be
located with at least two functions in mind:
where they will be needed in relation to use and
where they can be easily available for pickup
and emptying. Rest areas for bicyclists are the
most logical locations for trash barrels.
Litter control: Paths are often subject to less
littering than roadways, and the debris tends
not to be of the same kind (e.g., few abandoned
cars or dead animals). However, special attention is focused on the path-side appearance due
to the more leisurely pace of traffic on trails.
Paths should be kept free of litter and debris to
maintain the path in a neat, clean and attractive
manner.
Trash and rubbish deposited on or along the
path should be picked up and disposed of periodically as necessary. Generally, path-sides
should be given a thorough cleanup in the
spring and periodically as needed thereafter.
Debris, such as fallen branches, or rock or earth
slides, should be removed from the path and
ditches immediately after they are observed or
reported. Citizen or civic group participation in
clean-up efforts on trails should be encouraged.
Fencing: Fencing along paths should be maintained in the same manner as highway fencing.
Structural deterioration: Structures should be
inspected annually to ensure they are in good
condition. Special attention should be given to
wood foundations and posts to determine
whether rot or termites are present.
Special facilities: Steps and ramps on bicycle
paths should be maintained at a level that will
accommodate the type of use associated with
the trail. Ramps for wheelchairs should be kept
in good condition, and graded areas should
receive adequate attention.
Operation And Maintenance 65
Enforcement: Special attention to law enforcement may be necessary. In some cases, unauthorized motor vehicles may routinely use a
bicycle path, causing danger for users and
potential damage for the path itself. In addition,
the potential for crimes of violence on isolated
paths should be carefully evaluated and monitored. It may be necessary to implement a routine path patrol.
January 1994
Appendices
Appendix 1: Bicycle and Bikeway Act of 1974...........................................................................................79
Appendix 2: NCDOT Bicycle Policy...........................................................................................................81
Appendix 3: The Bicycle Transportation Improvement Program................................................................83
Appendix 4: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part IX ......................................................87
Appendix 5: North Carolina Signs.............................................................................................................103
January 1994
Appendices 67
68 Appendices
January 1994
Appendix 1 Bicycle and Bikeway Act of 1974

G.S. 136-71.6. How Article cited.
This Article may be cited as the North Carolina Bicycle and
Bikeway Act of 1974. (1973, c. 1447, s.1)
G.S. 136-71.7. Definitions.
As used in this Article, except where the context clearly
requires otherwise, the works and expressions defined in this section
shall be held to have the meanings here given to them:
(1)bicycle: a nonmotorized vehicle with two or three wheels
tandem, a steering handle, one or two saddle seats and pedals by
which the vehicle is propelled.
(2) bikeway: A thoroughfare suitable for bicycle, and which
may either exist within the right-of-way of other modes of transportation, such as highways, or along a separate and independent
corridor.
(3) Department: North Carolina Department of Transportation.
(4) Program: North Carolina Bicycle and Bikeway Program.
(5) Secretary: The Secretary of the North Carolina Department
of Transportation. (1973, c.1447, s. 2; 1975, c. 716, 2.7; 1977, c.
1021, s.1.)
G.S. 136-71-8. Findings.
The General Assembly hereby finds that it is in the public
interest, health, safety, and welfare for the State to encourage and
provide for the efficient and safe use of the bicycle; and that to coordinate plans for bikeways most effectively with those of the State
and local governments as the affect roads, streets, schools, parks and
other publicly owned lands, abandoned roadbeds and conservation
areas, while maximizing the benefits from the use of tax dollars, a
single State agency, eligible to receive federal matching funds,
should be designated to establish and maintain a statewide bikeways
program. The General Assembly also finds that bikeways are a bona
fide highway purpose, subject to the same rights and responsibilities,
and eligible for the same considerations as other highway purposes
and functions. (1973, c. 1447, s. 3; 1977, c 1021, 2.1.)
G.S. 136-71.9. Program development.
The Department is designated as such State agency, responsible
for developing and coordinating the program (1973, c. 1447, s.4.)
G.S. 136-71.10 Duties.
The Department will:
(1) Assist and cooperate with local governments and other
agencies in the development and construction of local and regional
bikeway projects;
(2) Develop and publish policies, procedures, and standards for
planning, designing, constructing, maintaining, marking, and operating bikeways in the State; for the registration and security of bicycles; and for the safety of bicyclists, motorists, and the public.
(3) Develop bikeway demonstration projects and safety training programs;
(4) Develop and construct a State bikeway system. (1973, c.
1447, s.5.)
G.S. 136-71-11. Designation of bikeways.
bikeways may be designated along and upon the public roads.
(1973, c. 1447, s.5.)
January 1994
G.S. 136-71.12. Funds.

The General Assembly hereby authorizes the Department to
include needed funds for the program in its annual budgets for fiscal
years after June 30, 1975, subject to the approval of the General
Assembly.
The Department is authorized to spend any federal, State. local
or private funds available to the Department and designated for the
accomplishments of this Article. Cities and towns may use any
funds available. (1973, c. 1447, s.6.)
G.S. 136-71.13. North Carolina Bicycle Committee; composition,
meetings, and duties.
(a) There is hereby created a North Carolina Bicycle Committee within the Department of Transportation. The bicycle Committee shall consist of seven members appointed by the Secretary.
Members of the Committee shall receive per diem and necessary
travel and subsistence expense in accordance with the provisions of
G.S. 138-5. Initially, three members shall be appointed for two
years, and four members for four years; thereafter each appointment
shall be for four years. Upon the resignation of a member in
midterm, the replacement shall be appointed for the remainder of the
unexpired term. The Secretary shall make appointments to the Committee with a view to providing representation to each of the States
geographical regions and to the various types of bicycle users and
interest.
(b) The Bicycle Committee shall meet in various sections of
the State, not less than once in any three months, and at such other
times as may be necessary to fulfill its duties. A majority of the
members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The staff of the bicycle and bikeway program shall
serve the Committee, maintain the minutes of Committee meetings,
research questions of bicycle transportation importance, and undertake such other activities for the Committee as may be consistent
with the programs role within the Department.
(c) The Bicycle Committee shall have the following duties:
(1) To represent the interests of bicyclists in advising the Secretary on all matters directly or indirectly pertaining to bicycles and
bikeways, their use, extent, location, and other objectives and purposes of this Article;
(2) To adopt bylaws for guiding its operation, as well as an outline for pursuing a safer environment for bicycling in North Carolina;
(3) To assist the bicycle and bikeway program in the exercise
of its duties within the Department; and
(4) To promote the best interest of the bicycling public, within
the context of the total transportation system, to governing officials
and the citizenry at large.
(d) The Secretary, with the advice of the bicycle Committee,
shall coordinate bicycle activities among the divisions of the Department, as well as between the Department of Transportation and the
other departments. Further, he shall study bicycle and bikeway
needs and potentials and report the findings of said studies, with the
Committees recommendations, to the appropriate policy or legislative bodies. The Secretary shall transmit an annual report to the
Governor and General Assembly on bicycle and bikeway activities
within the Department, including a progress report on the implementation of the Article. (1977, c. 1021, 2.1.)
Appendix 1 69
70 Appendix 1
January 1994
Appendix 2
NCDOT Bicycle Policy
North Carolina Department

of Transportation
This bicycle policy revokes and replaces the former bicycle policy adopted by the Board of Transportation in
November 1978. The revised bicycle policy was adopted
on April 4, 1991.
General
Pursuant to the Bicycle and Bikeways act of 1974, the
Board of Transportation finds that bicycling is a bonafide
highway purpose subject to the same rights and responsibilities and eligible for the same considerations as other
highway purposes, as elaborated below.
1. The Board of Transportation endorses the concept
that bicycle transportation is an integral part of the comprehensive transportation system in North Carolina.
2. The Board of Transportation endorses the concept
of providing bicycle transportation facilities within the
rights-of-way of highways deemed appropriate by the
Board.
3. The Board of Transportation will adopt Design
Guidelines for Bicycle Facilities. These guidelines will
include criteria for selecting cost-effective and safetyeffective bicycle facility types and a procedure for prioritizing bicycle facility improvements.
4. Bicycle compatibility shall be a goal for state highways, except on fully controlled access highways where
bicycles are prohibited, in order to provide reasonably safe
bicycle use.
5. All bicycle transportation facilities approved by the
Board of Transportation shall conform with the adopted
Design Guidelines for Bicycle Facilities on state-funded
projects, and also with guidelines published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) on federal aid projects.
Planning and Design

It is the policy of the Board of Transportation that
bicycle facility planning be included in the state thoroughfare and project planning process.
1. The intent to include planning for bicycle facilities
within new highway construction and improvement projects is to be noted in the Transportation Improvement
Program.
2. During the thoroughfare planning process, bicycle
usage shall be presumed to exist along certain corridors
(e.g., between residential developments, schools, businesses and recreational areas). Within the project planning process, each project shall have a documented
finding with regard to existing or future bicycling needs.
In order to use available funds efficiently, each finding
shall include measures of cost-effectiveness and safetyeffectiveness of any proposed bicycle facility.
3. If bicycle usage is shown likely to be significant,
and it is not prohibited, and there are positive cost-effective and safety-effective findings; then, plans for and
designs of highway construction projects along new corridors, and for improvement projects along existing highways, shall include provisions for bicycle facilities (e.g.,
bike routes, bike lanes, bike paths, paved shoulder, wide
January 1994
outside lanes, bike trails) and secondary bicycle facilities

(traffic control, parking, information devices, etc.).
4. Federally funded new bridges, grade separated
interchanges, tunnels, viaducts and their improvements,
shall be designed to provide safe access to bicycles, pursuant to the policies of the Federal Highway Administration.
5. Barriers to existing bicycling shall be avoided in
the planning and design of highway projects.
6. Although separate bicycle facilities (e.g., bike
paths, bike trails) are useful under some conditions and
can have great value for exclusively recreational purposes, incorporation of on-road bicycle facilities (e.g., bicycle lanes, paved shoulders) in highway projects are
preferred for safety reasons over separate bicycle facilities parallel to major roadways. Secondary complementary bicycle facilities (e.g., traffic control, parking,
information devices, etc.) should be designed to be within
highway rights-of-way.
7. Technical assistance shall be provided in the planning and design of alternative transportation uses, including bicycling, for abandoned railroad rights-of-way. This
assistance would be pursuant to the National Trails Act
Amendment of 1983, and the resultant national Rails to
Trails program, as will the Railway Revitalization Act of
1975.
8. Wherever appropriate, bicycle facilities shall be
integrated into the study, planning, design and implementation of state funded transportation projects involving
air, rail and marine transportation, and public parking
facilities.
9. The development of new and improved bicycle
control and information signs is encouraged for the
increased safety of all highway users.
10. The development of bicycle demonstration projects
which foster innovations in planning, design, construction
and maintenance is encouraged.
11. Paved shoulders shall be encouraged as appropriate along highways for the safety of all highway users,
and should be designed to accommodate bicycle traffic.
12. Environmental documents/planning studies for
transportation projects shall evaluate the potential use of
the facility by bicyclists and determine whether special
bicycle facility design is appropriate.
13. Local input and advice shall be sought, to the
degree practicable, during the planning stage and in
advance of the final design of roadway improvements to
ensure appropriate consideration bicycling needs, if significant.
14. On highways where bicycle facilities exist, (bike
paths, bike lanes, bike routes, paved shoulders, wide curb
lanes, etc.), new highway improvements shall be planned
and implemented to maintain the level of existing safety
for bicyclists.
15. Any new or improved highway project designed
and constructed within a public-use transportation corridor with private funding shall include the same bicycle
facility consideration as if the project had been funded
with public funds. In private transportation projects
(including parking facilities), where state funding or
department approval is not involved, the same guidelines
Appendix 2 71
and standards for providing bicycle facilities should be

encouraged.
Construction
It is the policy of the Board of Transportation that all
state and federally funded highway projects incorporating
bicycle facility improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with approved state and federal guidelines and
standards.
1. Bicycle facilities shall be constructed and bicycle
compatibility shall be provide for, in accordance with
adopted Design Guidelines for Bicycle Facilities and with
guidelines of the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
2. Rumble strips (raised traffic bars), asphalt concrete
dikes, reflectors and other such surface alterations, where
installed, shall be placed in a manner as not to present hazards to bicyclists where bicycle use exists or is likely to
exist. Rumble strips shall not be extended across shoulder
or other areas intended for bicycle travel.
3. During restriping operations, motor vehicle traffic
lanes may be narrowed to allow for wider curb lanes.
Maintenance
It is the policy of the Board of Transportation that the
state highway system, including state-funded bicycle facilities, shall be maintained in a manner conducive to bicycle
safety.
1. State and federally funded and built bicycle facilities within the state right-of-way are to be maintained to
the same degree as the state highway system.
2. In the maintenance, repair and resurfacing of highways, bridges and other transportation facilities, and in the
installation of utilities or other structures, nothing shall be
done to diminish existing bicycle compatibility.
3. Rough road surfaces which are acceptable to motor
vehicle traffic may be unsuitable for bicycle traffic. Special consideration may be given for highways with significant bicycle usage.
4. For any state-funded bicycle project not constructed
on state right-of-way, a maintenance agreement stating that
maintenance shall be the total responsibility of the local
government sponsor shall be negotiated between the
department and the local government sponsor.
5. Pot-holes, edge erosion, debris, etc., are special
problems for bicyclists and their elimination should be a
part of each divisions maintenance program. On identified
bicycle facilities, the bike lanes and paths should be routinely swept and cleared of grass intrusion, undertaken
within the discretion and capabilities of Division forces.
ways may be studied and considered as an exception for

usage by bicycles where adjacent highways do not exist or
are more dangerous for bicycling. Pursuant to federal
highway policy, usage by bicyclists must receive prior
approval by the Board of Transportation for each specific
segment for which such usage is deemed appropriate, and
those segments shall be appropriately signed for that
usage.
3. State, county and local law enforcement agencies
are encouraged to provide specific training for law
enforcement personnel with regard to bicycling.
4. The use of approved safety helmets by all bicyclists
is encouraged.
Education
It is the policy of the Board of Transportation that education of both motorists and bicyclists, regarding the rights
and responsibilities of bicycle riders, shall be an integral
part of the departments Bicycle Program.
School systems are encouraged to conduct bicycle safety education programs as a part of and in addition to drivers education program, to the maximum extent
practicable, and in conjunction with safety efforts through
the Governors Highway Safety Program. The Division of
Motor Vehicles is also urged to include bicycle safety and
user information in its motor vehicle safety publications.
Parking
It is the policy of the Board of Transportation that
secure and adequate bicycle parking facilities shall be provided wherever practicable and warranted in the design
and construction of all state-funded buildings, parks and
recreational facilities.
Operations
It is the policy of the Board of Transportation that operations and activities on the state highway system and bicycle facilities shall be conducted in a manner conducive to
bicycle safety.
1. A bicyclist has the right to travel at a speed less than
that of the normal motor vehicle traffic. In exercising this
right, the bicyclists also shall be responsible to drive his/her
vehicle safely, with due consideration to the rights of other
motor vehicle operators and bicyclists and in compliance
with the motor vehicle laws of North Carolina.
2. On a case-by-case basis, the paved shoulders of
those portions of the states fully controlled access high-
72 Appendix 2
January 1994
Appendix 3
THE Bicycle TIP Process
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is

the process through which local areas and citizens are
asked to present their highway and transportation
needs to state government. Bicycle safety needs are an
important part of this process. Each year, a series of
TIP meetings is scheduled around the state. Following
the conclusion of the TIP meetings, all requests are
evaluated. Bicycle improvement requests which meet
project selection criteria are then scheduled into a fouryear program as part of the states long-term transportation program.
In fiscal year 1992, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation allocated two million dollars annually
for the provision of independent bicycle projects (i.e.,
those projects which are separate from any other

scheduled highway improvements). Incidental projects, or those where the bicycle request is an incidental feature of a planned highway improvement, are
built with a mixture of state and federal funds as part
of overall highway improvement. Examples of bicycle
projects already underway include signed bicycle
routes, a greenway bicycle path, roadways with
widened lanes, widened paved shoulders, bicycle parking, replacement of hazardous drainage grates and
bicycle maps.
The Transportation Improvement Program Process: From Need to Bicycle

or Pedestrian Improvement
I. Recognizing a need for a bicycle improvement project. Somewhere in a local area there
may be unsafe or difficult riding conditions for
bicyclists which highlight a need for bicycle
transportation improvements be it an on-road
improvement project such as wide paved shoulders, bicycle parking, an off-road bike path, or
printed materials such as maps and safety
brochures. Pedestrian needs also may be recognized.
II. The need is presented to the North Carolina
Department of Transportation. If it is a citizen or a private group, such as a local bicycle
club, which has recognized a need for a bicycle
improvement, there are several ways to present
the need to transportation officials. First, a citizen
or local club may write a letter presenting the
need to the town or county managers office. A
follow-up telephone call should be made in order
to learn the officials view of the proposed project. Town or county officials may, or may not,
choose to include the improvement in their transportation improvement plan to be presented to the
state at the yearly Transportation Improvement
Program meeting.
If an official of an agency desires to make a
bicycle request at a division TIP meeting but is
not able to attend on the date of that meeting,
there is a 30 day period following the meeting
during which the request may be submitted in a
letter addressed to the Secretary of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. All
requests will receive the same degree of consideration.
January 1994
III. All bicycle project requests are documented. Following the public TIP meetings, requests
for bicycle transportation improvement projects
will be organized and documented by the
NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. A survey will be sent to each individual or agency which has made a request.
Information obtained from this survey will be
used to determine the feasibility of the requested
project as well as to assign a level of priority to
it.
IV. Some bicycle and pedestrian improvement
projects are selected for construction. The
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
first evaluates and prioritizes all the requests;
then a summary of the project requests is presented to the NCDOT Bicycle Committee for its
review. Following their review, the committee
forwards recommendations on the scheduling of
some of the requested projects to the North Carolina Board of Transportation which makes the
final decision on inclusion of the recommendations in the TIP. To be included in the TIP plan
does not guarantee that a requested project will be implemented. Rather, it means
that the project will receive further study
and will be implemented if feasible.
V. Projects which are included in the TIP fall
into two categories. Bicycle and pedestrian
projects which can be incorporated into a
planned and scheduled highway improvement
are categorized as incedental projects. The
bicycle or pedestrian element will be considered
during the planning and design phases of the
total project. Incedental projects are built with a
Appendix 3 73
combination of state and federal funds in the

same manner as the larger highway project is
constructed.
Bicycle projects which are not incorporated
into a planned and scheduled highway improvement, but are planned, funded and built seperately, are categorized as indepentent projects.
These projects are constructed using 80% federal/20% state funding.
VI. Finally, some TIP projects are implemented. In the case of a scheduled incidental bicycle
or pedestrian improvement, inclusion in the TIP
means that the bicycle facility will be considered
in conjunction with the planning and environmental studies for the given highway project. If the
bicycle or pedestrian component of the project is
deemed feasible, it will be scheduled for construction.
Following inclusion in the Bicycle TIP, each
independent project will receive further study.
This detailed planning study will include an evaluation of the feasibility of the proposed improvement as well as an actual project cost. Upon
completion and acceptance by the NCDOT, the
planning study will then be submitted to the
North Carolina Board of Transportation for final
approval and funding. A project must successfully pass through each of these levels in order to be
implemented. During any of the above phases of
project development, it may be necessary to alter,
or, in some cases, eliminate a proposed improvement due to regulatory and design constraints or
because of unanticipated costs.
VII.
TIP bicycle projects may take many
forms. There are a number of bicycle improvement projects which involve construction of onroad and off-road facilities. Some of these
projects include: wide paved shoulders (4 ft minimum width), specially striped lanes for bicycles,
wide outside lanes (13-14 ft minimum width)
which permit a safer bicycle/automobile mix,
greenway-type bicycle paths, railroad crossing
improvements for bicycle safety, and the addition
of bicycle-safe bridge railings.
However, there are eligible bicycle improvements that do not require a construction project.
Examples of these include: signing bicycle
routes; producing maps and safety brochures for
cyclists in local areas; replacing dangerous
drainage grates with bicycle-safe drainage grates;
making spot improvements such as paving potholes or hazard marking of dangerous roadway
features; and providing bicycle safety education
materials to local areas.
In many cases it may be difficult to determine
which kind of facility improvements is most
74 Appendix 3
needed. Therfore, it is entirely appropriate to

request that bicycle improvements be made along
a particular corridor without specifying a particular type of treatment.
TIP Bicycle project selection criteria

The following factors which affect bicycle project selection for the TIP is intended to provide guidance to local area requestors. It is important to note
that:
A. Many worthwhile projects will fulfill only a few
of the following conditions. Nevertheless, we
encourage submission of all needed projects,
since cost constraints and regulations may
change over the next few years, allowing us to
schedule previously infeasible projects.
B. Detailed project justification based on the factors listed below is not required at the time of
project submission. We will contact you during
a follow-up period to obtain any additional
needed information.
The criteria are as follows:

1. Cost limitations: Given current budget constraints, it is unlikely that any projects with a cost
in exess of $300,000 will be scheduled.
2. Right-of-way: Complete information regarding
the right-of-way situation should be provided.
Due to the limited size of our annual budget, projects requiring that NCDOT acquire right-of-way
are unlikely to be scheduled.
3. Design standards: Projects must be in conformance with federally adopted bicycle design
guidelines, as described in the AASHTO Guide
for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1991)
and the NCDOT Bike Guidlines (1994). The
sidewalk bikepath, which is constructed adjacent to the roadway for two-way bicycle traffic,
runs counter to the AASHTO guidelines and is
discouraged within our program.
4. Project purpose: Each project must serve a primary bicycle transportation purpose, as opposed
to a recreation or pedestrian purpose.
5. Preliminary project approval: All necessary
permits and approval must be obtained for any
project involving a public jurisdiction (including
approval of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and inclusion in the local TIP, lease agreements,
construction and encroaching permits, etc.).
6. Local area involvement: Project requests are
viewed within the overall picture of bicycling in
an area. Evidence of local concern and involvement via other bicycle projects or activities lends
support to each specific bicycle request. Local
participation (via a direct dollar share or design
January 1994
services) is viewed as one measure of a local

areas commitment to an improved bicycle environment.
7. Inclusion in transportation or bicycle planning process. Evidence that your specific bicycle request is an element of a comprehensive
transportation or bicycle planning process provides critical support for your project.
8. Project need: Priority will be given to those projects where the greatest need can be demonstrated. Accident statistics, potential safety problems,
and information regarding current or potential
users of the facility can all provide project justification.
9. Boardwalks: Multi-use pathways that are intended to accommodate bicycles should not be
designed with significant sections of boardwalk,
or other such surfaces, which may be unsuitable
for bicycle transportation purposes.
January 1994
Appendix 3 75
76 Appendix 3
January 1994
Appendix 4
MUTCD Part IX
A. GENERAL
9A-1 Requirements for Bicyclist Traffic
Control Devices
Traffic control devices, whether they are
intended for motorists or bicyclists, must adhere
to five basic requirements to be able to perform
their intended function. They must:
1. Fulfill a need.
2. Command attention.
3. Convey a clear simple meaning.
4. Command respect of road users.
5. Give adequate time for proper response.
The design, placement, operation, maintenance and uniformity of traffic control devices
must be considered to meet the above requirements. Design is a critical feature to permit the
device to fulfill a need and to command respect
of road users. The placement lateral, vertical
and longitudinal plays an important part in
making the device effective and in giving adequate time for proper response. The operation of
traffic in response to the device is, of course, the
critical test of the devices effectiveness and a
check on all five of the basic requirements.
Uniformity, achieved by following the recommendations and standards of this manual,
greatly enhances the ability of a device to convey a clear, simple meaning to the user.
Whenever devices are installed, they should
be warranted and based on a prior engineering
study. Where the guidance provided by this part
of the manual does not fully define where particular devices should be used, qualified traffic
engineers should determine the application of
devices on any bicycle facility before installation
is made. It is intended that this m anual define
the standards for traffic control devices, but shall
not be a legal requirement for their installation.
9A-2 Scope
This part covers bicycle-use related signs,
pavement markings, and signals which may be
used on highways or bikeways.
The following terms are used throughout
Part IX:
1. Bikeway: Any road, street, path or way which
in some manner is specifically designated as
January 1994
being open to bicycle travel, regardless of

whether such facilities are designated for the
exclusive us of bicycles or are to be shared with
other transportation modes.
2. Bicycle Trail: A separate trail or path from
which motor vehicles are prohibited and which is
for the exclusive use of bicycles or the shared use
of bicycles and pedestrians. Where such trail or
path forms a part of a highway, it is separated
from the roadways for motor vehicle traffic by an
open space or barrier.
3. Designated Bicycle Lane: A portion of a
roadway or shoulder which has been designated
for use by bicyclists. It is distinguished from the
portion of the roadway for motor vehicle traffic
by a paint stripe, curb, or other similar device.
4. Shared Roadway: A roadway which is officially designated and marked as a bicycle route,
but which is open to motor vehicle travel and
upon which no bicycle lane is designated.
5. Bicycle Route: A system of bikeways designated by appropriate route markers, and by the
jurisdiction having authority.
9A-4 Standardization of Devices

Standards for basic design elements and
devices using these standards are given in this
Manual. These standard devices generally will
serve most applications. Where particular conditions require the use of a device that is not
included in this Manual, the general principles
in this Manual as to color, size, and shape
should be followed wherever practical. Such
devices should also follow the design, installation and application concepts contained in the
Manual.
9A-5 Maintenance
Bicycle signs and markings should be properly maintained to command respect from both
the motorist and the bicyclist. When installing
signs and marking on bicycle facilities, care
should be taken to have an agency designated to
maintain these devices.
Appendix 4 77
9A-6 Legal Authority

Traffic control devices shall be placed
only by authority of a public body or official
having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic. No traffic
control device or its support shall bear any
advertising or commercial message, or any
other message that is not essential to traffic
control.
All regulatory devices, if they are to be
enforced, need to be backed by applicable
laws, ordinances, or regulations.
In this part as in other parts of the Manual, the words shall, should, and may
are used to describe specific conditions concerning traffic control devices. To clarify the
meanings intended by the use of these words,
the following definitions are provided:
1. SHALL: A mandatory condition. Where
certain requirements in the design or application of the device are described with the
shall stipulation, it is mandatory that these
requirements be met.
2. SHOULD: An advisory condition. Where
the word should is used, it is considered to
be advisable usage, recommended but not
mandatory.
3 . M AY: A permissive condition . No
requirement for application is intended. If a
particular device is used under a may condition, however, its design shall follow the
prescribed format.
9A-8 Relation to Other Documents

The Uniform Vehicle Code and Model
Traffic Ordinance published by the National
Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and
Ordinances, have provisions for bicycles and
are used as the legal basis for the control
devices included herein. Under the Uniform
Vehicle Code, bicycles are generally considered to be vehicles, so the bicyclists have the
same privileges and obligations as other
drivers.
Informational documents used during the
development of the signing and markings
recommendations in this part of the Manual
include the following:
78 Appendix 4
1. Guide for Bicycles, American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, 1974.
2. Bikeways, State of the Art, Federal
Highway administration, 1974.
3. Bicycle Facility Location Criteria, Federal Highway Administration, 1976.
4. Bicycle Facility Design Criteria, Federal Highway Administration, 1976.
5. State and municipal design guides.
9A-9 Colors
The use of colors for bicycle facility traffic control devices should conform to the
color code specified for signs and markings.
This in part is as follows:
YELLOW-General warning
RED-Stop or prohibition
BLUE-Service guidance
BROWN-Public recreation and
scenic guidance
ORANGE-Construction and
maintenance warning
BLACK-Regulation
WHITE-Regulation
B. SIGNS
9B-1 Application of Signs
Bicycle-use related signs on highways
and bikeways serve three basic purposes: regulating bicycle usage, directing bicyclists
along pre-established routes, and warning of
unexpected conditions. Care should be taken
not to install too many signs. A conservative
use of regulatory and warning signs is recommended as these signs, if used to excess, tend
to lose their effectiveness. The frequent display of guide signs, however, aids in keeping
the bicyclist on the designated route and does
not lessen their value. Some signs for the
bicyclist can also serve the motorist and the
pedestrian.
9B-2 Location and Position

Where signs are to serve both bicyclists
and motorists, mounting heights and lateral
placement shall be as specified in Part II,
Signs. Figure 9-1 illustrates typical signing
placement for bicycle trails. Overhead sign
clearance on bicycle trails shall be a minimum of 8 f e e t. The c le a r a nc e pr ov id e d
January 1994
4 min.
5 max.
3 min.
6 max.
Nominal width of bike path
Figure 9-1: Bicycle sign placement on a trail.
should also be adequate for the typical maintenance vehicles used on the bikeway . Where
signs are for the exclusive use of bicyclists,
care should be taken that they are located so
that motorists are not confused by them.
9B-3 Design
The design of signs for bicycle facilities
should, whenever possible, be identical to
that specified in this manual for motor vehicle
travel. Uniformity in design includes shape,
color, symbols, wording, lettering, and illumination or reflectorization. Detailed drawings
of the standard signs illustrated in this Manual are available to State and local highway
and traffic authorities, sign manufacturers,
and similar interested agencies. Standardization of these signs does not preclude further
improvement by minor changes in the proportion of symbols, stroke width, and height of
letters, or width of borders. However, all
shapes and colors shall be as indicated; all
symbols shall be unmistakably similar to
those shown and (where a word message is
applicable) the wording shall be as provided
herein.
The sign dimensions shown in this part of
the Manual shall be considered standard for
application on all types of bicycle facilities.
Where signs shown in other parts of this
Manual are intended for exclusive bicycle
use, smaller sign sizes from that specified
may be used. Incremental increases in special
bicycle facility signs are also desirable to
make the sizes compatible with signs for
motor vehicles, where both motorists and
bicycles benefit by a particular sign.
January 1994
The sign lettering shall be in upper-case

letters of the type shown in the Standard
Alphabets for Highway Signs and Pavement
Markings.
All signs should be reflectorized for bicycle trails as well as for shared roadway and
designated bicycle lane facilities.
9B-4 Regulatory Signs

Regulatory signs are to inform bicyclists,
pedestrians, and motorists of traffic laws or
regulations and indicate the applicability of
legal requirements that would not otherwise
be apparent.
Regulatory signs normally shall be erected at the point where the regulations apply.
The sign message shall clearly indicate the
requirements imposed by the regulations and
shall be easily visible and legible to bicyclists
and where appropriate, motorists and pedestrians.
9B-5 Bicycle Prohibition Sign (R5-6)

This sign is intended for use at the entrance
to facilities, such as freeways, where bicycling is
prohibited. Where pedestrians and motor-driven
cycles are also prohibited from using these facilities, it may be more desirable to use the R5-10a
word message sign (sec. 2B-28).
In reduced size (18 x 18 inches), this sign
may be used on sidewalks where bicycle riding
is prohibited.
9B-6 Motor Vehicle Prohibition Sign (R5-3)

This sign is intended for use at the entrance to a
bicycle trail.
Appendix 4 79
9B-7 Bicycle Restriction Signs (R9-5 & 6)

This series of signs is intended for use
where pedestrian facilities are being use for
bicycle travel. They should be erected off the
edge of the sidewalk, near the crossing location, where bicyclists are expected to dismount
and walk with pedestrians while crossing the
street.
The R9-5 sign may be used where bicycles
can cross the street only on the pedestrian walk
signal indication.
The R9-6 sign may be used where bicycles
are required to cross or share a facility used by
pedestrians and are required to yield to the
pedestrians.
R5-6
24" X 24"
NO
MOTOR
VEHICLES
9B-8 Designated Lane Signs (R3-16 &

R3-17)
T h e R 3 - 1 6 sign should be us e d in
advance of the beginning of a marked designated bicycle lane to call attention to the lane
and to the possible presence of bicyclists.
The R3-16 and R3-17 signs should be used
only in conjunction with the Preferential
Lane Symbol pavement marking and erected
at periodic intervals along the designated
bicycle lane and in the vicinity of locations
where the preferential lane symbol is used
(sec. 9C-4).
Where appropriate, the message ENDS
may be substituted for AHEAD on the R3-16
sign and LEFT of CURB can be substituted
for RIGHT on the R3-17 sign.
9B-9 Travelpath Restriction Signs (R9-7)

The R9-7 sign is intended for use on facilities which are to be shared by pedestrians and
bicycles and on which a designated area is provided for each (sec. 9C-3). Two of these signs
may be erected back-to-back with the symbols
reversed for the opposite direction.
9B-10 Stop and Yield Signs (R1-1,2)

STOP signs are intended for use on bicycle
facilities where bicyclists are required to stop.
Where conditions require bicyclists and not
motorists to stop, care should be taken to place
the sign so it is not readily visible to the motorist.
YIELD signs are intended for use where the
bicyclist can see approaching traffic and where
bicyclist must yield the right of way to that traffic.
80 Appendix 4
R5-3
24" X 24"
USE
PED
SIGNAL
YIELD
TO
PEDS
R9-5
12" X 18"
R9-6
12" X 18"
KEEP
LEFT RIGHT
R9-7
12" X 18"
January 1994
LANE
AHEAD
R3-16
24" X 30"
RIGHT
LANE
ONLY
R3-17
24" X 30"
The visibility of approaching traffic must be adequate to permit the bicyclist to stop or to take
other measures to avoid that traffic.
For added emphasis STOP and YIELD signs
in regular 30 x 30 inch and 36 x 36 x 36 inch
sizes may be used.
The smaller signs shown below are intended
for use on bicycle trails where bicyclists are
required to stop or yield the right of way. If the
sign applies to motorists and bicyclists, then the
size should be as shown in Part II-B.
9B-11 No Parking Signs (R7-9, & 9a)
STOP
YIELD
R1-1
18" X 18"
R1-2
24" X 24" X 24"
NO PARKING
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
R7-9
12" X 18"
R7-9a
12" X 18"
RIGHT LANE
MUST
BEGIN
RIGHT TURN LANE
TURN RIGHT
YIELD TO BIKES
R3-7
30" X 30"
R4-4
36" X 30"
Where it is necessary to restrict parking,

standing, or stopping in a designated bicycle
lane, appropriate signs as described in sections
2B-31 through 2B-33 may be used, or signs R79 or R7-9a shall be used.
9B-12 Lane Use Control Signs (R3-7, R4-4)

Where right-turning motor vehicles must
merge with bicycle traffic on designated bike
lanes, the R3-7 and R4-4 signs may be used.
The R4-4 sign is intended to inform both the
motorist and the bicyclist of this merging
maneuver. Where a designated bicycle lane is
provided near the stop line, an R3-7 sign may
be used to prevent motorists from crossing back
over the bike lane.
9B-13 Warning Signs

Warning signs are used when it is deemed
necessary to warn bicyclists or motorist of existing or potentially hazardous condition on or
adjacent to a highway or trail. The use of warning signs should be kept to a minimum because
the unnecessary use of them to warn of conditions which are apparent tends to breed disrespect for all signs.
Warning signs specified herein cover most
conditions that are likely to be met. If other
warnings are needed, the signs shall be of standard shape and color for warning signs, and the
legends shall be brief and easily understood.
9B-14 Bicycle Crossing Sign (W11-1)

The Bicycle Crossing sign is intended for use
on highways in advance of a point where a bikeway crosses the roadway. It should be erected
about 750 feet in advance of the crossing location
in rural areas where speeds are high, and at a disJanuary 1994
Appendix 4 81
tance of about 250 feet in urban residential or business areas, where speeds are low.
If the approach to an intersection is controlled by a traffic control signal, stop sign or
yield sign, the W11-1 sign may not be needed.
9B-15 Hazardous Condition Sign (W8-10)

The Hazardous Condition sign is intended
for use where roadway or bicycle trail conditions are likely to cause a bicyclist to lose control of his bicycle. These conditions could
include slippery pavement, slick bridge, decking, rough or grooved pavement, or water or ice
on the roadway. The W8-10 sign may be used
with a supplemental plaque describing the particular roadway or bicycle trail feature which
might be of danger to the bicyclist such as
SLIPPERY WHEN WET, STEEL DECK,
ROUGH PAVEMENT, BRIDGE JOINT, or
FORD.
9B-16 Turn and Curve Signs (W1-1, 2, 4, 5,

6, 7)
SLIPPERY
WHEN WET
W11-1
30" x 30"
W8-10
Roadway Signs
30" x 30"
24" x 24"
Bicycle Trail Signs

18" x 18"
12" x 9"
W1-1
18" x 18"
W1-2
18" x 18"
W1-4
18" x 18"
W1-5
18" x 18"
On bicycle trails where it is necessary to

warn bicyclists of unexpected changes in path
direction, appropriate turn or curve signs should
be used. They should normally be installed no
less than 50 feet in advance of the beginning of
the change of alignment.
9B-17 Intersection signs (W2-1,2,3,4,5)

Intersection signs are intended for use as
appropriate to fit the prevailing geometric pattern on bike trails where connecting routes join
and where no STOP or YIELD signs are
required. They should be used wherever sight
distance at the intersection is severely limited,
and may be used for supplemental warning at
intersections where STOP and YIELD signs are
erected.
9B-18 Other Warning Signs

Other warning signs may be required on
bicycle facilities to warn riders of unexpected
conditions. The intended use of these signs generally is self-explanatory. They should normally
be installed no less than 50 feet in advance of
the beginning of hazards.
Where construction or maintenance activity
is present on bicycle trails, appropriate signs
from Part VI of the Manual should be used.
82 Appendix 4
W1-6
24" x 12"
W1-7
24" x 12"
January 1994
W2-1
18" x 18"
W2-2
18" x 18"
W2-3
18" x 18"
STOP
AHEAD
W2-4
18" x 18"
W2-5
18" x 18"
W3-1
18" x 18"
BIKEWAY
NARROWS
W3-3
18" x 18"
W5-4
18" x 18"
7'-6"
W11A-2
18" x 18"
January 1994
W12-2
18" x 18"
W7-5
18" x 18"
W10-1
18" Diameter
Appendix 4 83
9B-19 Guide Signs

On highways where a bicyclist is sharing a
lane with motor vehicles or is using an adjacent
bikeway, the regular guide signing as described
in Part II of the Manual will serve both modes
of travel. Where a designated bikeway exists,
special bicycle route signing should be provided
at decision points, including signs to inform
cyclists of bicycle route direction changes and
confirmatory signs to ensure that route direction
has been accurately comprehended.
Figure 9-2 shows an example of the signing
for the junction of a bicycle trail with a highway. Figure 9-3 shows the signing and marking
for the beginning and ending of designated
bikeways. Guide signing should be repeated at
regular intervals to ensure that bicyclists
approaching from side streets know they are
traveling on an officially designated bikeway.
Similar guide signing should be used for shared
lane bikeways with intermediate signs placed
frequently enough to ensure that cyclists already
on the bikeway do not stray from it and lose
their way.
BIKE ROUTE
D11-1
24" x 18"
13
M1-8
12" x 18"
9B-20 Bicycle Route Sign (D11-1)

This sign is intended for use where no
unique designation of routes is desired. It
should be placed at intervals frequent enough to
keep bicyclists informed of changes in route
direction and to remind motorists of the presence of bicyclists.
9B-21 Bicycle Route Markers (M1-8,

M1-9)
Where it is desired to establish a unique
identification (route designation) for a State or
local bicycle route, the standard Bike Route
Marker (M1-8) should be used. The route
marker (M1-8) shall contain a numerical designation and shall have a green background with a
reflectorized white legend and border.
Where a bicycle route extends for long distances in two or more States, it is desirable to
establish a unique numerical destination for that
route. A coordinated submittal by the affected
States for assignment of route number designations should be sent to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite
225, Washington, D.C. 2001. The route marker
84 Appendix 4
23
M1-9
18" x 24"
January 1994
BIKE ROUTE
BIKE ROUTE
END
NO
MOTOR
VEHICLES
STOP
750 feet rural

250 feet urban
750 feet rural

250 feet urban
BIKE ROUTE
Figure 9-2: Typical signing for beginning and ending of bicycle trail.
January 1994
Appendix 4 85
Not less than

50 feet
RIGHT
LANE
ONLY
750 feet rural

250 feet urban
BIKE ROUTE
ONLY
RIGHT
LANE
ENDS
RIGHT
LANE
BEGIN
Not less
than 50 feet
750 feet rural

250 feet urban
LANE
ONLY
750 feet rural

250 feet urban
750 feet rural
250 feet urban
LANE
BEGIN
BIKE ROUTE
AHEAD
Figure 9-3: Typical signing for beginning and ending of designated bicycle lane.
86 Appendix 4
January 1994
(M1-9) shall contain the assigned numerical

designation and have a black legend and border with a reflectorized white background.
Bike Route Markers are intended for use
on both shared facilities and on designated
bike ways, as required, to provide guidance
for bicyclists.
9B-22 Supplemental Plaques for Route

Signs and Markers
Where desired, supplemental plaques can be
used with the D11-1 and M1-8 signs to furnish
additional information, such as directional
changes in the route, and intermediate range
distance and destination information.
The M4-11 through M4-13 signs may be
mounted above the appropriate Route Signs or
Route Marker. Supplemental plaques D1-1b and
c are intended for use with the D11-1 Bicycle

route Sign. The appropriate arrow sign (M7-1
through M7-7), if used, should be placed below
the Route Sign or Route Marker. These signs
shall have a white arrow on a green background.
9B-23 Bicycle Parking Area Sign (D4-3)

The Bicycle Parking Area sign may be
used where it is desired to show the direction
to a designated bicycle parking area within a
parking facility or at other locations. The sign
shall be a vertical rectangle of a standard size
of 12 by 8 inches. It shall carry a standard
bicycle symbol, the word PARKING, and an
arrow. The legend and border shall be green
on a reflectorized white background.
SALEM 6
M4-11
24" x 6" or 12" x 4"
D1-1b(L)
24" x 6"
SALEM 6
M4-12
24" x 6" or 12" x 4"
D1-1b(R)
24" x 6"
8TH AVE
M4-13
24" x 6" or 12" x 4"
D1-1(c)
24" x 6"
M7-1
M7-2
M7-3
M7-5
M7-6
M7-7
M7-4
M7-1 through M7-7

12" x 9"
January 1994
Appendix 4 87
9C-3 Marking Patterns and Colors
PARKING
D4-3
12" x 18"
C. MARKINGS
9C-1 Functions and Limitations of
Markings
Markings are important on roadways that
have a designated bicycle lane. Markings indicate the separation of the lanes for motor vehicles and bicycles, assist the bicyclist by
indicating assigned travel paths, and can provide
advance information for turning and crossing
maneuvers.
9C-2 General Principles

Although bicycles are generally not
equipped with strong lighting equipment, the
added visibility of reflectorized pavement markings is desirable even where there is exclusive
use by bicyclists.
Markings shall be reflectorized on bicycle
trails and on facilities use by both motor vehicles and bicycles.
Recognized bikeway design guides should
be used when laying out markings for a bicycle
lane on a highway facility (sec. 9A-8).
The frequent use of symbols and word messages stenciled in the bike lanes, is a desirable
method of supplementing sign messages. Figures 9-4 through 9-6 show acceptable examples
of the application of lines, word messages and
symbols on designated bikeways with and without parking for motor vehicles.
If a specific path for a bicyclist crossing an
intersection is to be designated, a dotted line
may be used to define such a path.
88 Appendix 4
The color and type of lines used for marking bicycle facilities shall be as defined in section 3A-7. Normally, center lines would not be
required on bicycle paths. Where conditions
make it desirable to separate two directions of
travel at particular locations, a double solid
yellow line should be used to indicate no passing or no traveling to the left of the line.
Where bicycle paths are of sufficient width
to designate two minimum width lanes, a broken yellow line may be used to separate the
two directions of travel.
Broken lines used on bicycle paths should
have the normal 1 to 3 segment-to-gap ratio.
To avoid having gaps excessively long, a nominal 3-foot segment with a 9-foot gap is recommended.
Where bicycles and pedestrians use a common facility, it may be desired to separate the
two traffic flows. A solid white line should be
used to mark this separation of path use. The
R9-7 sign may be used to supplement the
pavement marking (sec. 9B-9).
9C-4 Marking of Designated Bikeways

The diamond-shaped Preferential Lane
Symbol is intended for use on highway facilities
where lanes are reserved for exclusive use by a
particular class of vehicle. Designated bikeways
are considered as this type of lane and shall
include use of the Preferential Lane Symbol as a
pavement marking and on appropriate signing
(sec. 9B-8). The symbols as a pavement marking shall be white and shall be used immediately after an intersection to inform turning
motorists of the restricted nature of the lane. If
the Preferential Lane Symbol is used in conjunction with other word or symbol messages, it
shall precede them. A supplemental lane symbol
or word may be used following as shown in figures 9-4 through 9-6.
9C-5 Word Messages and Symbols

Applied to the Pavement
Where messages are to be applied on the
pavement, smaller size letters can be used on
exclusive bike lanes than are used on regular
highways. Where arrows are needed, half-size
layouts of the arrows can be used (sec. 3B-17).
Optional word and symbol markings considered
January 1994
appropriate for use with the Preferential Lane

Symbol marking are shown in figure 9-6. Standard pavement marking alphabets and symbols
have been prepared.*
*Available from the Federal Highway Administration (HTO20) Washington, D.C. 20590
9C-6 Object Markings on Bicycle Trails

There may be hazardous objects located
adjacent to bicycle trails which, if visible to
the rider, can be avoided with little difficulty.
Such objects can be marked with highly visible
markings to make their identification by
approaching riders more certain. Care should
BIKE
Not less
than 50 feet
Optional dotted line

through intersection
ONLY
BIKE
Figure 9-4: Typical pavement markings designating bicycle lane, two-way traffic with parking and low right turn volume.
January 1994
Appendix 4 89
be taken to avoid having object markers

become hazardous objects. Corners of object
markers as well as signs should be rounded to
prevent their becoming a hazard.
All object markers should be designed using
reflective materials or coatings. where practical,
markers such as those described in section 3C-1

of this Manual should be used.
Where a storm drain hazard cannot be eliminated, it may be made more visible to bicyclists
by defining with a white marking, applied as
shown in figure 9-7.
LANE
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
Dotted line
optional
ONLY
LANE
BIKE
ONLY
LANE
BIKE
RIGHT LANE
MUST
TURN RIGHT
LANE
Not less than 50 feet
ONLY
BEGIN
RIGHT TURN LANE
YIELD TO BIKES
Figure 9-5: Intersection pavement markings designated bicycle lane with left turn area, heavy turn volumes, parking,
one-way traffic or divided roadway.
90 Appendix 4
January 1994
8'
50'
Not less
than 250'
15'
BIKE
8' 32'
XING
100'
4'
6'
HWY
6'
BIKE
6'
6'
ONLY
4'
4'
XING
4'
50'
R R
8'
XING
8'
6'
32'
6'
20'
4'
20'
6'
100'
4'
LANE
Figure 9-6: Word and symbol pavement markings for bicycle facilities.
D. SIGNALS
9D-1 Application
It is rare when a traffic signal is installed
solely for bicyclists; however, at some locations
there may be a need to install signal devices to
facilitate bicycle travel through the intersection.
For warrants and other requirements relating to
signal installations, see Part
January 1994
IV of this Manual. Warrants used for motor vehicles are considered appropriate for use in determining the need for signals to serve bicyclists.
Warrant Four for school crossings is considered
to be appropriate for bicyclists also.
9D-2 Visibility Requirements

At installations where programmed signals are
Appendix 4 91
Type I
18" x 18"
Type II
6" x 12"
used, special attention should be given to

adjusting the signals so bicyclists on the regular bicycle lanes or travel paths can see the signals. If programmed signals cannot be aimed
to serve the bicyclist, then separate signals
shall be provided.
Type III
12" x 36"
For convenience, Part IX Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities of the MUTCD
has been included in this Appendix. Readers are encouraged to purchase the entire
document.
9D-3 Signal Operation for Bicycles

Bicycles generally can cross intersections
under the same signal timing arrangement as
motor vehicles. Where bicycle use is expected,
extremely short change intervals should not be
used and an all red clearance interval may be
necessary.
Chapter X included general comments on
placing traffic control devices on bicycle routes,
lanes, and paths. The reader should refer to the
appropriate sections for suggested applications
of traffic control devices. However, specific
applications of traffic control devices on bikeways must be in accordance with the MUTCD.
20'
Curb
6"
Direction of
travel
Figure 9-7: Typical marking in advance of drainage hazard.
92 Appendix 4
January 1994
Appendix 5
North Carolina Signs
The following signs were created by the

Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
and are specific to North Carolina.
W11-1
30" x 30"
Warning signs
Share the road (W28-1): This subplate, when
combined with the W11-1 warning sign is

intended to increase bicyclists visibility without designating the signed roadway as a preferred route. It is intended for use on roadways
with high levels of bicycle traffic, but relatively
hazardous conditions for bicyclists. Its intention
is not to encourage inexperienced bicyclists to
ride on the roadway as a preferred route.
This sign is especially useful in cities and
towns where there are large numbers of bicyclists riding on streets which are unsuitable for
designation as preferred bicycle routes due to
factors such as narrow lanes, high speed traffic
and/or high traffic volumes.
Bicyclist Hazard (SP-537): This subplate, when
combined with the W8-10 warning sign is
intended to warn bicyclists of the presence of a
surface condition that could cause them to lose
control.
Information signs
Overnight Bicycle Parking (D4-4B): This sign is a
special purpose sign intended to identify bicycle

parking that may be used overnight.
SHARE
THE ROAD
W8-10
30" x 30"
BICYCLIST
HAZARD
SP-537
18" x 9"
OVERNIGHT
BICYCLE
PARKING
D4-4B
18" x 12"
Bicycle Parking (D4-4 and D4-4A): These signs

are special purpose signs intended to show bicyclists how to use a Ribbon Rack-type parking
device. They should be used at such installations where the probability of confusion is high,
particularly those where new users, who may
never have seen such a device, are common.
Figure 1: Various signs developed for specific purposes by

the North Carolina Department of Transportation Office of
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation.
January 1994
W28-1
24" x 18"
D4-4
18" x 12"
BICYCLE
PARKING
D4-4A
18" x 9"
Appendix 4 93
94 Appendix 4
January 1994
References
Accident studies
A Study of Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Accidents:
Identification of Problem Types and Countermeasure Approaches, Cross & Fisher,
NHTSA, 1977
An Analysis of Bicycle Accident Data from
Ten North Carolina Hospital Emergency
Rooms, Jane Stutts, HSRC, 1986
Bicycle Safety Education: Facts & Issues, Ken
Cross, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1978
Causal Factors of Non-motor Vehicle Related
Accidents, Santa Barbara (California) County,
1980
Fatal Injuries to Bicyclists: The Experience of
Dade County, Florida, Fife et al, Journal of
Trauma, 1983
Manual & Computerized Accident Typing
Systems, NHTSA, 1981
Education and training

Basics of Bicycling, NCDOT, 1990
Bike-Ed, Road Transport Authority, Victoria (Australia), 1989
Cycleway, the Royal Society for Prevention of
Accidents (United Kingdom), 1982
Effective Cycling, John Forester, 1984
Pedal Power: Bicycle Safety Activities for
Communities, Clark & Wagner, Minn. 4H,
1984
Engineering and planning

General references
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets; AASHTO, 1990
California Highway Design Manual; CalTrans,
1987
Guidelines for Wide Paved Shoulders on Lowvolume, Two-lane Rural Highways; Woods,
Rollins & Crane, Texas A&M, 1989
Highway Capacity Manual; TRB, 1985
Maintenance Manual; AASHTO, 1987
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices;
FHWA, 1988
North Carolina Roadway Design Manual; NC
DOT, 1984
Roadside Design Guide; AASHTO, 1989
Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges; AASHTO, 1989
January 1994
Bicycle facility design guides

Arizona Bicycle Facilities Planning & Design
Guidelines, AZDOT, 1988;
Bicycle-Compatible Roadways - Planning and
Design Guidelines, NJ DOT, 1982
Bicycle Facilities Planning & Design Manual,
Florida DOT, 1982
Guide for the Development of New Bicycle
Facilities; AASHTO, 1981;
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; AASHTO, 1991;
Motor Vehicle Laws of North Carolina; NC
DOT, 1985
Oregon Bicycle Master Plan, OR DOT, 1988
Ohio Bicycle Facilities Design Guide; OH DOT,
1988
Special topics and research
A Bikeway Criteria Digest: the ABCDs of
Bikeways, MD DOT, 1977
A Simple Bike Rack Design, Technical Note P3,
Bicycle Forum 1988
An Investigation of the Potential for Pathways
Shared by Pedestrians and Bicyclists,
Appendix W, FHWA, 1978
Bicycle Facility Design and Legal Liability,
Robert Seyfried, Bicycle Forum, 1984
Bicycle Transportation, John Forester, 1983
Bicycles & Traffic Signals, Technal Note F2,
John Williams, Bicycle Forum, 1990
Bicycles in Cities: The Eugene Experience,
Bikeways Oregon, 1981
Bicycling Science, Witt & Wilson, 1989
Bike Parking Location, Technical Note P1, Bicycle Forum, 1987
Bikeway Liability, Technical Note F1, Alex Sorton, Bicycle Forum, 1986
Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines,
ITTE, 1972
Bikeways: State of the Art, FHWA, 1974
Choosing Parking Devices, Technical Note P2,
Bicycle Forum 1987
Evaluation of the Burke-Gilman Trails Effect
on Property Values and Crime, Seattle
Engineering Dept., 1987
Evaluation of the Eugene Bikeways Master
Plan, Regional Consultants, 1979
Evaluation of Wide Curb Lanes as Shared Lane
Appendix 4 95
Bicycle Facilities; McHenry & Wallace, 1984

Geelong Bikeplan, Victoria (Australia) State Bicycle Committee, 1977
Liability Aspects of Bikeway Designation,
John English, Bicycle Federation of America,
1986
Madisons Parking Ordinance, Technical Note,
Arthur Ross, Bicycle Forum1989
Pedal Cycle Braking Performance: Effects of
Brake Block and Rim Design; Watt, TRRL,
1980
Perth Metropolitan Region Bikeplan: Main
Report, Perth (Australia) Bikeplan Study Team,
1985
Safety & Locational Criteria for Bicycle Facilities, FHWA, 1976
Traffic Signal Bicycle Detection Study: Final
Report, City of San Diego, 1985
Law and enforcement

Law Enforcement Manual, Hunter & Stutts,
HSRC, 1979
North Carolina Bicycle Registration Study,
Research Triangle Institute, 1978
Policing by Mountain Bike; Paul Grady, 1990
Periodicals
Bicycle Forum, Bikecentennial, quarterly
Pro-Bike News, the Bicycle Federation of
America, monthly
For more information contact:

Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
1552 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1552
Phone (919) 807-0777 Fax (919) 807-0768
96 Appendix 4
January 1994

Bicycle Projects Planning and Design Guidelines

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bicycle Projects Planning and Design Guidelines

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Users are responsible for keeping this manual updated.

North Carolina Bicycle Facilities

North Carolina Department of Transportation

for the NCDOT, Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation

North Carolina Bicycle Facilities

Designating bike routes....................................39

2-1: Comprehensive bicycle planning ..................................................................................................................................6

List Of Figures vii

Bicycling is a popular means of travel and recreation for a variety of people.

millions of Americans use the bicycle to fulfill

Each year, cities throughout North Carolina

same considerations as other highway purposes

Purpose and scope

2 Planning For Bicycle Use

Introduction: the planning process

Step 1: Develop goals and objectives

Goal 3. Behavior improvement: Identify the

Step 2: Develop planning framework

Integration with other plans: Planning for bicycle

transportation also should be integrated into the

Step 3: Analyze local conditions

Basic traffic law enforcement

Bike to work days

survey when completed. Mail surveys involve

particular corridor from one year to the next

Behavioral observation: Observing bicyclist

Typical behaviors: Common behaviors to

developed for the National Highway Traffic

Environmental conditions inventory:

Bicycle crash locations: Through the three

Behavioral factors: Bicyclist and motorist

Surveys: See User Surveys (page 7) for

Barrier identification: Since for most people

Common barriers: Common bicycle traffic

Rough shoulder or rumble strips: Rumble

Bicycle Traffic Generators: Bicycle traffic

Step 4: Develop the problem statement

Step 5: Generate solution ideas

to evaluating results will allow the designer to

Remark or widen narrow lanes: In some

situation. They also may provide an enjoyable

Encouragement projects: Encouragement

Step 6: Select solutions and develop a plan

Step 7: Implement projects

Implementing the plan involves work on

Bicyclist training: Bicyclist education and

Policy development: The first task may involve

Bicycle enforcement: Enforcement of traffic

Long-range planning: The second task involves

These projects may be identified in a bicycle

Short-range planning: The third task involves

Step 8: Evaluate results and revise

An example of a bicycle-pedestrian bridge.

Planners and engineers have a wide range of

Bicycle and bicyclist characteristics

While these dimensions give the physical

In determining design speeds, it is important

bicyclists traveling at the same speed may vary

Grates and resurfacing: Because bicycles are more

Grate cover replacement and retrofit: Unsafe grate

covers should be replaced with either Type E, F or

Bicycles will be ridden on all highways

Figure 4-1: Bicycle-safe drainage grates approved by

highways or bikeways at-grade, they should do